Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES ENDOWMENT FUND BILL (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely,

Imperial War Graves Endowment Fund Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Montrose Bridge Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Barnsley, Maidstone, Port Talbot, Rochester and Chatham Joint Sewerage District,, Wakefield, and West Kent Main Sewerage District," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL JUSTICE COMMITTEE.

Mr. PILCHER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any action has been taken, or is to be taken,
by the Indian Government on the findings of the Committee on the law's delays in India?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Yes, Sir. The Government of India have given special attention to the many recommendations of the Civil Justice Committee, of which a number can be put into effect by local governments, High Courts and the presiding officers of the Courts of Justice throughout India. They are now receiving reports of the action taken, and in addition certain Bills are either under consideration or have been already passed into law. I would specially mention the important Sind Courts Bill introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. PILCHER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the House some information as to the personnel, reference, and probable date of appointment of the Public-Service Commission which is to be set up in India?

Earl WINTERTON: Provision is being made in the Indian Budget for 1926–27 for the cost of the Public Service Commission, and it is hoped that an announcement as to its personnel and the date of its institution will be made shortly. I do not quite understand the question as to "reference," for it is to be a permanent body like the Civil Service Commission in this country.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.

Mr. COVE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House as to the considerations which influenced the Government of India in their appointment of Mr. Coat-man as Director of Public Information, and why an Indian was not appointed?

Earl WINTERTON: I have received no special information, but Mr. Coatman is an officer of high academic distinction, having taken first-class honours at Oxford in the School of Philosophy, Politics and Economics. He also won the Beit prize for colonial history. I have no doubt that this weighed with the Government of India in considering him best qualified for the post.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. COVE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to nominate an Indian to represent India at the eighth and ninth sessions of the Inter national Labour Conference at Geneva on 26th May and 9th June; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of nominating an Indian representative, in view of the fact that questions relating to Indian shipping are to come up before the conference on the above dates?

Earl WINTERTON: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. The second question does not, therefore, arise.

INDIAN STATES (TREATIES).

Mr. SCURR: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received proposals from any of the ruling- princes of India with reference to the treaties governing the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Indian States; and whether it is proposed to convene a conference between the Government of India and the ruling princes, with a view to the systematising of such treaties in the light of modern requirements?

Earl WINTERTON: Any such proposals would be addressed to the Government of India. I am not aware that, apart from some general discussion, there have been any proposals recently, or that the Government of India contemplate the action suggested in the second part of the question.

JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS.

Mr. SCURR: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to refer the question of separating the judicial and executive functions to an expert Committee, in view of the desire for this reform repeatedly expressed in the past and recently formulated in the legislative assembly?

Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware, the answer is in the negative, but this does not mean that the Government of India are not actively engaged in endeavouring to find a satisfactory solution of this difficult question. In some provinces the matter has already been elaborately examined by expert Committees.

PAYMENT OF WAGES.

Mr. BROMLEY: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to introduce legislation at an early date with the object of preventing delay in the payment of wages and the consequent hardship which delay inflicts on the workers?

Earl WINTERTON: As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark Central on 16th November last, the Government of India have the matter under consideration.

DEFAMATION OF POLICE OFFICER, BENGAL.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information on the alleged recent attempt of a Bengal police officer to entice a student of Brojomohan College, Barisal, to join a students' welfare society, in order to persuade its members to become revolutionaries?

Earl WINTERTON: The facts of the case are as follows: In a long letter to the "Forward" newspaper of Calcutta, a student named Sailesh Chandra Dhar made against a police inspector a charge of the nature stated in the question. The inspector prosecuted the student for defamation; the student pleaded guilty, and stated that the allegation made in his letter was false. He was convicted, and bound over to be of good behaviour. The "Forward" has published several articles on agents provocateurs, but this conviction disposed of the only specific accusation on which the articles have been based.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Is it not the fact that a newspaper in this country, "The Daily Herald," published the allegation referred to in the question, and whether the paper has also published the result of the trial?

Earl WINTERTON: The very serious charge made against the police in the "Forward" newspaper of Calcutta was reproduced in "The Daily Herald" in this country. The sequel to that charge, which proved its utter baselessness, has not yet appeared in "The Daily Herald," but I hope it will when the editor has less pressure on his space.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Noble Lord say categorically that the Government of India does not employ agents provocateurs?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir, I will say so categorically, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity of denying a most gross and baseless insinuation.

SIERRA LEONE (LABOUR DISPUTE).

Mr. LANSBURY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the labour dispute at Sierra Leone has yet been settled; is he aware that the origin of the dispute is the decision of the new railway manager to impose new conditions of periodical examination on workpeople without first of all either consulting those concerned or their representatives; that this manager "threatened wholesale dismissals, declaring that the service was quite inefficient; and that the occasion of the outbreak was the dismissal of station-masters and others without giving them adequate opportunity to defend themselves?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The Governor has now reported that the men returned to work on 26th February. The complaint mentioned by the hon. Member was referred to in a statement of grievances formulated by the union after the dispute had begun, but it does not appear that this was the cause of the strike. The examinations were introduced to ensure a reasonable modicum of efficiency in the traffic staff; and I am aware that a warning was given that inefficient officers could not be retained in the service indefinitely. As regards the older men, the intention was to exempt them from the annual examinations if they showed a real desire to improve. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a full report as to the origin of this dispute, and is he aware that the Colonial newspapers give an entirely different version from that which he has just given to the House?

Mr. AMERY: I certainly hope to get a full report from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

KILINDINI PORT.

Mr. SNELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the future control of Kilindini Port, Kenya Colony, will be issued as a White Paper when received; and will he make known to the House the intentions of the Government before action is taken?

Mr. AMERY: The Report is being published locally and copies will be placed in the Library of the House; I do not think that republication is necessary. As regards the latter part of the question, it will be open to the hon. Member to put down a further question at a later date.

MASAI INQUIRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Masai Inquiry Committee has been laid before Parliament?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I would invite the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the full reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee on 8th February.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have had my attention drawn to that. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to lay the Report of this inquiry before the House?

Mr. AMERY: I think I shall have to await the full Report before I can answer that question.

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. SCURR: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Kenya has taken any action in regard to the petition from the Kikuyu Central Association asking for certain reforms in health administration?

Mr. AMERY: I have no information on the subject, but I will inquire of the Governor.

MALAYA (STRIKES).

Mr. PENNY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has
any information as to the propaganda being carried on by the Cantonese Bolshevist element in the Straits Settlements to foment strikes amongst workers of all kinds; is he aware that the Chinese master tailors of Singapore have petitioned the Governor to have the tailors' guild broken up and the ringleaders deported; and will he state what action is being taken in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: I am informed that the recent strikes in Malaya have been economic in origin. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The Governor reports, however, that the master tailors have produced no evidence to support their allegations, and that in consequence no deportations have taken place. The situation is being closely watched by the Colonial Government.

CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any definite organisation exists in the Colonial Office for the collation of information obtainable from similar Departments of Government in our various Crown Colonies and Protectorates and for its utilisation in directing the activities of those Departments?

Mr. AMERY: The importance is well' recognised at the Colonial Office of supplying oversea Governments with information as regards other Colonies and Dependencies where this is likely to be of use in Colonial administration or development, and I am extending the system under which certain subjects are specially studied by individual officers to whom all communications dealing with these subjects are passed, thus ensuring the collation and distribution of all important information. The same object is also directly promoted through special committees and technical advisers. Further, Colonial Governments are encouraged to exchange direct with each other reports of general interest and documents embodying the results of local experience in various fields.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the particular officer referred to concerned only in the
collation of this information, and no other?

Mr. AMERY: No; what I meant was that an individual officer will be encouraged to become specialised on particular subjects, and that material from all the Colonies connected with these subjects will come under review.

EAST AFRICA (DEVELOPMENT LOAN).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that the proposed loan of £10,000,000 is for the development of the East African territories as a whole, he will have a suitable map placed in the Tea Room showing the routes of railways that may be projected; and whether he can make any statement as to the sum that it is proposed should be allocated for research purposes?

Mr. AMERY: I have not yet received all the recommendations of the Governments concerned. As soon as they are available I hope to be able to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the second part of my question?

Mr. AMERY: I am looking into that. I am not quite sure what the proportion will be, but I hope that the amount will be substantial.

Sir R. HAMILTON: When will the Colonial Secretary be able to let us have the information?

Mr. AMERY: When I bring in the Bill with its schedule. I hope then to be able to show the general amount of the allocation.

26. Mr. W. BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is taking steps to see that all railway schemes in East Africa are designed to serve the best interests of the total area rather than the special interests of any Protectorate; and whether he will give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the detailed schemes before any final plans are confirmed?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There will be an opportunity of raising the question of East African development on the Bill for the Guaranteed Loan, but I hardly think that the House will wish to discuss the details of particular proposals.

MALAY STATES (ESTATE SCHOOLS).

Mr. COVE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many schools are provided and maintained by employers of labour in the Federated Malay Straits, the Straits Settlements, and the Unfederated Malay States, respectively; and whether the Government proposes to make any educational arrangements for children whose parents do not work on the rubber plantations?

Mr. AMERY: I am not in a position to give the figures for the Unfederated Malay States, but estate schools in the Straits Settlements in 1924 numbered 52 out of a total of 598 schools, and in the Federated Malay States 303 out of a total of 997. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

OVERSEA SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER LAMPSON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what the composition of the Oversea Settlement Committee is; how members to it are recruited; who now sits upon the Committee; and whether their selection is upon a partisan basis?

Mr. AMERY: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate a list of the members of the Oversea Settlement Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and include representatives of Departments interested and of shipping, besides men and women of special experience in connection with migration. The Committee is constituted on an entirely non-partisan basis.

Following is the list of members:

President:

The right hon. L. C. M. S. Amery, P.C., M.P., Secretary of State for
Dominion Affairs.

Chairmen:

The Earl of Clarendon.

H. B. Betterton, C. B. E., M. P. (Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Labour.)

Vice-Chairman:

T. C. Macnaghten, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Dominions Office).

Committee:

J. Ambrose (Liverpool Steamship Owners Association).
G. E. Baker, C.B.E. (Board of Trade).
Mrs. Harrison Bell.
Miss Margaret Bondfield, J. P.
Viscount Burnham, C.H.
Sir Wm. Clark, K.C.S.I., C.M.G. (Department of Overseas Trade).
L. Cuthbertson (Treasury).
C. W. G. Eady (Ministry of Labour).
Sir Francis Floud, K.C.B. (Ministry of Agriculture).
Colonel G. D. Jebb, C.M.G. (War Office).
A. B. Lowry, C.B. (Ministry of Health).
W. Lunn, M.P.
Dame Meriel Talbot, D.B.E.
Oscar Thompson (Chamber of Shipping).
Christopher Turnor.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much money has been allocated for emigration since the signing of peace; and how much has been spent?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 5th February to a question asked by the hon. Member for Govan.

Mr. HURD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will invite the Canadian Government to consider whether the entry into Canada of approved British boys and girls under 14 years of age should now be resumed under adequate safeguards for their future?

Mr. AMERY: The restriction to which my hon. Friend refers was imposed in the first instance for a period of three years as from 1st January, 1925, and I doubt whether the Canadian Government will be prepared to reconsider the position before the expiration of that period.

Mr. HURD: In the meantime, will some further inquiry be made to see whether this restriction is really based on any substantial facts?

Mr. AMERY: These are facts which are considered to be substantial by the Dominion Government, and the Commission which was sent from this country thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant the discontinuance of Government assistance to that form of emigration. But naturally we are keeping the whole matter constantly in view, and we are getting information all the time.

Captain GUNSTON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the effect on migration of schemes of social insurance?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir; the Report is now being printed, and I hope that it will be possible to lay it before Parliament in the course of next week.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how much has been expended in the last three years under the Empire Settlement Act out of the £3,000,000 per annum set aside for the purpose of Empire settlement in that Measure?

Mr. AMERY: The expenditure under the Empire Settlement Act has been as follows: In 1922–23, £35,464; 1923–24, £423,994; 1924–25, £439,051; period 1st April, 1925, to 23rd February, 1926, £352,553; total, £1,251,062.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether communications have been received from any of the Dominions expressing their views on the proposed increase in the permanent membership of the Council of the League of Nations; and, if so, to what effect?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 17th February. I feel sure that he will appreciate that it is not possible for me to make any statement as to
the nature of the communications passing with the Dominions on this subject, which are of a confidential character.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman submit the correspondence prior to any Debate taking place on this subject?

Mr. AMERY: I am not quite sure that I can. I shall have to consider that, but it will depend a good deal on the views of the Governments concerned.

Mr. THOMAS: Is it not essential for this House to know exactly what is the Dominions' point of view?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the instructions to be given to our delegate on the Council of the League of Nations on the question of the enlargement of the League Council beyond the admission of Germany?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing fear in this House and in the country that an attempt may be made at the forthcoming League of Nations meeting at Geneva to effect extensive permanent changes in the constitution of the League of Nations Council, he will inform the House what instructions have been or will be given to the British delegate before he leaves this country for Geneva?

Mr. HARRIS: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Dominions will have an opportunity to discuss any proposed change in the constitution of the League of Nations Council before this country is committed to any change?

Captain LODER: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution unanimously adopted by the First Assembly of the League of Nations on the 7th December, 1920, laying it down that when a member of the League of Nations Council votes he does so not in a personal capacity, but specifically in the name of the country he represents.; and whether, in view of the national responsibility attaching to a decision on the question of increasing the permanent membership of the League of Nations Council, which if taken cannot be reversed, he will give facilities for the discussion of the matter in this House
before the Government's policy is finally settled?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I shall be glad if hon. Members will be good enough to await the statement on this subject which I hope to make later in the week, probably on Thursday.


            Lieut. Commander
            KENWORTHY
          : I will repeat the question on Thursday.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Is it quite impossible to make that statement on Wednesday?

The PRIME MINISTER: Either Wednesday or Thursday. If I can, I will do it on Wednesday.

SAAR COMMISSION.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the agenda of the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League of Nations which has been arranged so that the question of the Saar Commission will be brought up first, and before Germany has been admitted to the League; and whether the Government will endeavour to secure that a matter so closely concerning German interests should be postponed until she can be represented?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I can add nothing to the reply given on 25th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon.

Mr. TREVELYAN: In view of the international importance of this matter, and the fact that it has not been orally answered, would the right hon. Gentleman read the reply?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
Major HILLS asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the first item on the agenda of the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations Council has reference to the appointment of the members and chairman of the Saar Valley Governing Commission, it is intended to deal with this matter before Germany has taken her seat as a member of the Council?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it is the usual practice for the Council to examine the agenda and decide all questions relating to its procedure, and I am unable
to anticipate the Council's decision on this occasion.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1926; cols. 750–51, Vol. 192.]

Mr. MacDONALD: May we assume it is an open question as to whether that will be discussed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Obviously a British Minister cannot speak for the Council about a matter which is within the discretion of the Council, and on which it has not yet deliberated. I am fully aware of the large interests that are involved in the whole proceedings of the forthcoming Council of the League.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, whether the Government will endeavour to secure that a matter so closely concerning German interests should be postponed until she can be represented?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the interests of peace and international understanding are served by members of individual Governments saying what they will or will not do at a meeting of the great world Council of the League of Nations, and I do not see how we can ever come to an agreement if each of us announces our policy beforehand and is unwilling to make any concession to others.

Captain SHAW: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for drawing attention.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can state, approximately, what length of time it is proposed to devote to the Imperial Conference in October; and whether he can give the House an idea of some of the subjects which are to be discussed?

Mr. AMERY: The length of an Imperial Conference depends, of course, largely upon the character of the agenda, but previous Conferences have lasted approximately, a month to six weeks. The agenda for the forthcoming Conference will be worked out in detail during the next few months. It is contemplated that there should be a discussion, not only of questions of foreign policy and
defence, including those arising out of the Locarno Treaty, but also of economic matters, such as were dealt with at the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923.

PHILADELPHIA EXHIBITION, 1926.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether there will be any official British participation in the Sesquicentennial International Exposition, Philadelphia, 1926?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Owing to the shortness of time in which to arrange an exhibit worthy of the occasion, and having regard to the urgent need for national economy, the Government have felt compelled to decline the invitation to participate officially in the forthcoming exhibition at Philadelphia.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if there is any intention to purchase permanent show grounds for the British Industries Fair?

Mr. SAMUEL: The possibility of permanent accommodation being provided for the British Industries Fair has been raised from time to time by exhibitors, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that, in view of the expense which would be involved, apart from any other considerations, the question can hardly be taken up at the moment.

Mr. H ANNON: Will some steps be taken to ensure the continuation of this very successful event every year?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is quite another question; it is a matter of expense.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how the present British Industries Fair compares with the last one held in regard to visits of buyers and business effected; and whether the exhibitors have expressed their satisfaction with the results which have accrued?

Mr. SAMUEL: A meeting of the advisory committee of exhibitors, held
on the 23rd February at the White City, unanimously expressed the opinion that the fair had been a success, and urged that it should be continued permanently. It is impossible to give any estimate of business done, but my information is that, both in the volume of actual business at the London and Birmingham sections and in the setting up of connections for future business, the fair is the most successful which has been held since the War. Cards of invitation were presented at the London Fair by 1,242 overseas buyers and 55,693 home buyers, some of the latter being agents of overseas firms, as compared with 1,031 and 24,195, respectively, in 1924.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it proposed to extend this very successful fair, in future years', to any other cities beside the Metropolis and Birmingham?

Mr. SAMUEL: There was an examination into that question some years ago, in one of the after-War Reports. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of that Report.

Mr. HANNON: Could my hon. Friend say, if a question were put down a week hence, what has been the result, from the buying point of view, of these two fairs?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; it would be obviously impossible to say how much business has been done. We could not go round and ask everyone what he had sold and what orders he had booked.

Mr. WILLIAMS:: Am I correct in assuming that the additional expenditure of £20,000 in overseas advertising has resulted in about 200 extra foreign visitors?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think I can reduce it to, that basis, but I should say that the £20,000 which has been spent in advertising will be repaid to the nation a great many times over.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. HURD: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has evidence showing that outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease arise in any degree owing to methods of transit of animals; and what steps he is taking in the matter?


            The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr.
            Guinness)
          : Yes, Sir; the transit of animals is undoubtedly responsible for much of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. I am sending my hon. Friend particulars of the Ministry's Regulations which deal with this matter.

Mr. HURD: Are there not some new points coming before my right hon. Friend which seem to require alteration of these Regulations?

Mr. GUINNESS: I shall be very glad to go into any points which my hon. Friend may raise.

Mr. EVERARD: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease that have occurred in the United Kingdom during the current financial year; the number of animals slaughtered; the amount of compensation paid; and what proportion of the amount comes out of the local taxation account?

Mr. GUINNESS: From the 1st April, 1925, to the 25th ultimo, 284 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in this country, involving the slaughter of 22,066 animals and the payment of £ 276,718 in compensation. The total net expenditure on account of foot-and-mouth disease during the same period, including compensation, administration expenses, disinfection of premises, etc., less receipts from salvage, has amounted to £302,414, of which £201,414 will be defrayed from local taxation accounts.

Mr. EVERARD: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent regulations making it necessary that a record must be kept of all movements of cattle, he will consider whether, in isolated outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, smaller areas might safely be scheduled?

Mr. GUINNESS: I hope that the new Records Order will result in limiting the spread of infection, but I am afraid it will not enable a smaller area to be placed under restriction in the first place.

ARABLE STOCK FARMING (EXPERIMENTS).

Mr. BUXTON: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department is promoting experiments in arable stock farming by means of grants to farmers?

Mr. GUINNESS: No grants are made direct to farmers by my Department, as it is not itself conducting investigations into arable stock farming; but in a few cases the various authorities aided by the Ministry to conduct experiments and investigations in this subject (of whom the principal is the Oxford Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics) have made with the occupiers of holdings arrangements which involve or may involve pecuniary assistance.

EMPIRE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will indicate the nature of the help to be given to British agriculture under the scheme for assisting the marketing of Empire produce?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Ministry is conducting an investigation into the marketing of agricultural produce in this country, and the question of devising plans for the promotion of improved methods which can form part of the proposals in regard to Empire marketing is receiving careful consideration.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that agriculture in this country will have at least its proportionate share of the benefits in relation to the produce of this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: Clearly, I cannot specify any proposals at this stage, but we hope to bring both the Dominion and the British interests within the scope of the proposals on fair terms.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no new competition with British farmers results from this grant of £1,000,000?

Mr. HURD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the decision of the Government to include home produce within the scope of the £1,000,000 grant to assist the marketing of Empire produce, a qualified representative of the British agricultural interest will now be added to the Imperial Economic Committee?

Mr. W. BAKER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the present position regarding the promised grant of £1,000,000 for the development of Dominion marketing?

Mr. SNELL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has been reached respecting the proposal to allot the sum of £1,000,000 to the more efficient marketing of Empire produce?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state how the £1,000,000 which is to be devoted to the marketing of Empire products is to be spent?

Sir R. HAMILTON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give the House any information as to the proposed Government scheme for assistance in the marketing of Dominion products?

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make in regard to the recommendation of the Imperial Economic Committee that £1,000,000 should be granted for Empire marketing?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to these questions. His Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to make an announcement, as details of the arrangements proposed are under discussion with the Dominions, but they hope to do so shortly.

Mr. HURD: Has not my right hon. Friend overlooked the real point of my question No. 45, namely, whether a qualified representative of the British agricultural interest will now be added to the Committee?

Mr. AMERY: That is one of the arrangements which is under consideration with the Dominion Governments, and on which the Prime Minister hopes to make an announcement very shortly.

Mr. HURD: Inasmuch as home produce is now to be brought within the scope of the Committee, does it not follow that there should be a representative of British agriculture on that Committee?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. Home produce may come within the scope of the money that is being spent, but the Imperial Economic Committee is a different body.
The whole of these questions are under discussion with the Dominion Governments at this moment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: If the Government adopt the recommendation that there should be a separate executive committee for spending the grant, will they see that British agriculture is represented on the spending committee?

Mr. AMERY: Quite so; that is obviously one of the things which are being considered.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the Colonial Secretary consider making representations to the Dominion Governments that British farmers are much poorer off than the Dominion farmers?

Mr. HURD: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that when Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, was here, he and other Dominion representatives distinctly said that the first place in British markets belonged to the British home producer?

Mr. AMERY: Quite so.

OFFICE OF WORKS (HOUSEBUILDING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many dwelling-houses are now under construction by his Department; and whether any additional building of dwelling-houses is contemplated?

Captain HACKING (for the First Commissioner of Works): Apart from 62 cottages for Coastguard personnel and for the staff of a State institution, no dwelling-houses are under construction by the Office of Works, nor is the building of any such houses under contemplation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform me—I know it is rather beyond the question—what has happened to the building staff which was built up under a previous First Commissioner? Is it not being used for building houses at all, has it been disbanded, or what has. happened to it?

Captain HACKING: Some of it may be being used for the purposes which I have mentioned, but I must have notice of that question as regards details.

TEA (RETAIL PRICES).

Mr. FORREST: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the further increase in the retail prices of tea; and whether, in the public interest, an inquiry into the system of brokerage is necessary?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of this increase. The Food Council will soon be taking evidence on the system of brokerage in the tea trade.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement of the chairman of the Home and Colonial Company on the 12th of last month, that they had bought very heavily in tea, and is there any reason why they should raise the price.

Mr. SAMUEL: We have asked the tea brokers' associations to give evidence, and I hope they will do so.

GOLD (IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of gold which has come to Great Britain from Russia during the past fortnight?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): It is common knowledge that some gold has been imported from Russia in the ordinary course during the last month or so. So far as I am aware, there have been no such imports in the past fortnight.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that Russian gold is as good as any other gold?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no reason to think the contrary.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether some of the gold that was stolen in Petrograd is among the gold which is coming over?

SCOTTISH HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the difficulties confronting the Scottish herring industry; and whether he is prepared to take steps to encourage trade between this country and Russia, and thus give employment in the fishing industry to many thousands who are now unemployed?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which were given to the hon. Members for Mile End and Merthyr on the 9th and the 16th February, respectively, copies of which will be sent to him.

Mr. MACLEAN: As there is an Export Credit scheme, cannot the herring fisheries be brought under it?

Mr. SAMUEL: That question was fully debated in the early hours of Tuesday last. May I refer the hon. Member to the OFFICIAL REPORT, or I will send him a copy.

Mr. MACLEAN: Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer a question put to him with courtesy in an equally courteous manner? He is quite well aware that I get a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT sent me. Since that Debate took place have not he and his Department considered the matter further with a view to bringing it under the scheme?

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not intend any disrespect to the hon. Member. The simple fact is this. It was stated the other night that we have considered the matter. The credit balance due to Russia over their trade with us in the last two years was £15,000,000. Let the Russian Government use that credit to buy British herring. That would solve the troubles of fishing folk in Britain; they could receive payment without using the British Government's export credits.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the Government not agree to some further inquiries into the matter to see whether something more cannot be done?

Mr. SAMUEL: No inquiry is necessary. The sellers of British goods have only to induce the Russian Government to use the money due on balance here to Russia.

Mr. MACLEAN: Have not other nations got a balance to their credit as well, and are we not giving export credits to firms who are dealing with that country? Why single out Russia?

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY)

Mr. MACLEAN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of publishing the names of the members of future committees of inquiry which are set up for the safeguarding of industries?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. That which the hon. Member desires is, and has been, the invariable practice. The names of the members are published as soon as the Committees are appointed.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Except in the case of iron and steel.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. BATEY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in possession of the Report of the Coal Commission; and whether he intends to circulate it to Members of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that, the Report will be presented to the House next week.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES

Captain CROOKSHANK: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the disadvantages that arise from going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates before the Navy and Army Estimates are published; and whether, in order that Members of the House may have simultaneous information regarding the three fighting services, he will in future years see that the three Estimates are in the hands of Members on the same day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider what can be done to meet the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it would be a great advantage to the House
if we had the Air Estimates at the same time because the House will then understand it is the one Department which is not reducing its Estimates.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree on the point, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows the practical difficulty.

YOUNG COMMUNISTS' LEAGUE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the formation by the Communist party in this country of a Young Communists' League, who have recently held a children's conference at Openshaw, near Manchester, the object of such league being to instil into the minds of children disloyalty to the Throne and constitution of their native country, to prepare for an alleged coming Red revolt, and to combat all patriotic organisations such as girl guides and boy scouts; and whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to protect children from being influenced in the manner indicated?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I am very well aware of the existence of the Young Communists' League and I am keeping—and shall continue to keep—a close watch on its activities. As regards the last part of the question, the desirability of amending the law in regard to sedition is under consideration and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend urge upon the Cabinet the desirability of pushing the matter forward as quickly as possible, in view of the efforts that are being made?

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman constantly bear in mind the intense anxiety there is in Kensington over this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that anxiety is not limited to Kensington.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I advise my hon. Friend to put down questions about the matter every day, and get it well advertised?

PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act no allowances are given for dependent relatives other than wives; and whether he will consider the possibility of so modifying the Act as to give some relief of this kind to unmarried pensioners with dependants?

Mr. McNEILL: The statement in the first part of the question is not correct. Section 7 (1) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, provides that a widower or widow with one or more children under 16 years of age dependent on him or her shall be regarded as a married person for the purpose of the means limit under the Act. As has been stated on several occasions in reply to previous questions, considerable concessions were made to pensioners by the Amending Act of 1924, and the Government are not prepared to introduce further legislation on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire into the position of the industrial employés of His Majesty's Government, who only get four public bank holidays in a year; and whether he will consider the possibility of giving these employés a reasonable period of annual holiday on full pay for the sake of their health and the efficiency of the Government service?

Mr. McNEILL: The matter has already received careful consideration, but it has not been found possible to adopt the proposal contained in the question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very small matter compared with the grant of £200,000 which it was proposed to make to the Civil Service for a Sports Ground?

COLONIAL SERVICES (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. W. BAKER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Committee has been appointed to
examine the present superannuation scheme which applies to men serving abroad under the Colonial administration; and, if so, how soon a Report may be expected?

Mr. AMERY: A Committee, which was appointed in 1922 to consider the Laws and Regulations applicable to pensions of Colonial Officials, presented their Report in January, 1924, and this was issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office as a non-Parliamentary publication.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I ask if the Report includes the question of transport between East Africa and West Africa?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot answer that off hand.

ECONOMY BILL.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes introducing the Economy Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped to introduce this Bill on the 11th March.

TRADE UNIONISM.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 62.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the International Federation of Trade Unions is inaugurating a fund for the purpose of helping trade unionism in back: ward countries, and whether he can set his way to encourage this movement, especially as it affects the backward countries of the British Empire?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the movement referred to by the hon. Member. It is not one in which it would be proper for the Government to intervene.

FRANCO-TURKISH AGREEMENT.

Viscount SANDON: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office are informed of the terms of the new Treaty between France and Turkey; whether it is being deposited with the League of Nations; and whether it will be made public?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: By the courtesy of the French Government I have received a general indication of the character of the Treaty. The last two parts of the question deal with matters which concern the French Government.

LITHUANIAN-POLISH FRONTIER.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to the situation which has been created on the Lithuanian-Polish frontier?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information other than that communicated to me by the Polish and Lithuanian Ministers in London, which has appeared in the Press, but I am making further inquiries. I hope it may turn out that the incident is of minor importance, like a similar one which occurred last year.

TANGIER (CAPTAIN CANNING).

Mr. MACLEAN: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the reasons given by the British Consul-General at Tangier for advising Captain Canning to leave Tangier?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Consul-General advised Captain Canning in his own interest to leave Tangier in order to avoid proceedings under the Statute for his expulsion. It was impossible to reconcile his activities and the character of his relations with Abdel Krim with the international status of Tangier.

CHINA (ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the closing of the ports of Canton and Whampoa?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Customs incident at Canton arose from an attempt of the strike committee to extort more money from external trade. Hitherto they had seized goods and extorted money from cargo after its release from Customs examination and duty collection, but recently they began to seize goods before they had reached the Customs examination sheds. According
to my information the Commissioner of Customs at Canton decided that in these circumstances his administration could not properly function, and, with the approval of the Inspector-General, he-stopped the functioning of the Customs so far as concerned loading and discharging of cargo. He did not close either the port or the Customs House. He took this action pending the surrender by the strikers of confiscated goods and an admission that in future all Customs formalities must be properly complied with. He did not make any condition regarding cessation of the boycott. The Press now report that the strikers have agreed to his conditions and that the incident is closed, but this lacks official confirmation.
The Chinese Maritime Customs, though organised and in part staffed by foreigners, is part of the central administration of China. The incident was therefore primarily a domestic concern and the foreign Powers, including Great Britain, were only indirectly interested. Owing to the boycott, no British ships were affected.

IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECT (ITALY).

Mr. DIXEY: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a Report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome with respect to the case of the man named Ellison, from Cockermouth, who was sentenced to seven months' solitary confinement at Florence?

Mr. CAPE: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome a Report on the case of William Ellison, a British subject, sentenced to prison for eight months under Italian law

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome reports that Mr. William Ellison, together with another British subject named Joseph Finegan, who was also employed at Messrs. Roberts' pharmacy at Florence, was arrested by the civil police on 16th February. Both men were brought before the magistrate on 22nd February. Finegan was charged with drunkenness and assault, fined 150 lire, and liberated. Ellison was charged with drunkenness, omitting to register himself as a foreigner, and uttering
offensive language against the Prime Minister. He was sentenced to eight months and five days' imprisonment and fined 1,400 lire. His Majesty's Consul at Florence arranged with Messrs. Roberts' for the defence of both men. Ellison has lodged an appeal against the sentence. His Majesty's Consul will watch the case.

HON. MEMBERS: Which Prime Minister?

Mr. DIXEY: In view of the fact that this penalty is a very severe one, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Foreign Office might make representations to Rome to see if something can be done to reduce the amount of the penalty?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is an obligation upon every foreigner within a country to obey the laws of the country of which he is a guest, and the whole ease must be regarded from that point of view. The time for intervention by His Majesty's Government has not yet arrived, if it ever does arrive. The case is subject to appeal and it would be very improper for me to instruct His Majesty's Ambassador to make any representations, pending the appeal.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that a British subject did break the law by criticising the Prime Minister?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: He was charged with being drunk, with having failed to register and with using offensive language to the Prime Minister of the country in which he was staying. I do not want to comment on the character of the offence alleged, while the case is subject to appeal. Those were the charges which were made against him.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ellison's penalty would have been a deal greater had it happened in Russia?

Mr. W. THORNE: It would have been very much less if it had happened in England.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (RATES).

Mr. MACLEAN: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the amount which has been collected from agricultural land in rates since 1920, and
whether he can state the amount that would have been collected had that land been fully rated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The information for which the hon. Member asks is not available, but my right hon. Friend is having such estimates as are practicable made, and will send him a statement as soon as possible.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES).

Mr. FORREST: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received suggestions that, in view of the considerable proportion of local rates paid by limited liability companies, the municipal franchise should be extended to them, and whether he will consider such a proposal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. I have received a number of suggestions on the subject. I see that a Bill has been introduced which I hope will afford an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ORTHOPÆDIC TREATMENT, WARWICKSHIRE.

Mr. DENNISON: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Warwickshire Education Authority contemplated making provision for orthopædic treatment for children, but in consequence of the issuing of Memorandum 44 this proposal has been abandoned; and will he consider the withdrawal of the application of the memorandum to this area in order that the treatment can be applied?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): No scheme of orthopædic treatment has been submitted to me by this authority, nor have I any information as to their present intention in the matter.

PLAYING FIELD, WOOD GREEN.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet decided to approve of the laying out of a playing field acquired by the Wood Green Education Authority or, if not, when his decision may be expected?

Lord E. PERCY: I intimated to the authority in November last that the proposals which they had submitted for laying out this playing field appeared to require modification, and up to the present I have received no revised proposals from them.

OPEN-AIR SCHOOL, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.

Mr. WHITELEY: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Stockton-on-Tees Education Authority will be permitted to proceed with the open-air school to accommodate 100 children?

Lord E. PERCY: This proposal is receiving consideration in connection with the revised Estimates for 1926–27.

CIRCULAR 1371 AND MEMORANDUM 44.

Mr. W. THORNE: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many resolutions he has received from various local education authorities and those passed at public meetings protesting against Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44; and whether the Government have decided to withdraw both Circulars?

Lord E. PERCY: I have received resolutions from 152 local education authorities and from a number of other bodies and individuals, but the latter have not been classified and tabulated. As regards the second part of the question, I have at present nothing to add to the statement which I made in the Debate on 8th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CATTERICK CAMP.

Colonel DAY: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War the amount likely to be expended in transforming the Catterick Camp into a permanent military
centre?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The total estimate for the general building programme now in course of execution at Catterick is £1,388,000, and for land purchase £267,000. In addition there will be certain accessory services, of which particulars are not yet available.

Sir F. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the acreage?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. LUNN: In dealing with Catterick Camp, is it the intention of the War Office to close down the excellent training centre which is there?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to close it down if it can possibly be avoided. I will deal with the point in detail if the hon. Member will put down a question.

TROOPS, WIESBADEN (RECREATION).

Colonel DAY: 84
asked the Secretary of State for War what provision has been made for the amusement and recreation of the Army of the Rhine following their removal to Wiesbaden?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Grounds have been provided for football and hockey, and a central institute and cinema have been opened in a large building requisitioned for the purpose. Arrangements are being made for the provision of further facilities for sport, and it is hoped that eventually the opportunities for recreation and amusement in the Wiesbaden zone will compare not unfavourably with those enjoyed by the Army at Cologne.

Colonel DAY: Has a shopping centre also been provided, so that the troops can buy British goods?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Army, Navy and Air Force institutes operate there, and give considerable facilities in that direction.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that British films are sent to the British cinema there?

DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the matter of negotiations with the Corporation of the City of London for the purchase of the Deptford Cattle Market area which have recently been the subject of arbitration, an award has been given; and, if so, will he state the terms of the settlement?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The award in this case has not yet been given; it is expected in the course of this month.

BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (WASHING FACILITIES).

Colonel DAY: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the application by the Union of Operative Bakers, Confectioners and Allied Workers, for the compulsory provision by all bakery trade employers of adequate washing facilities and supply of clean towels has yet been considered; and whether any Order for such provision is likely to be made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The inquiries into this question are now complete, and certain proposals have been drawn up which I am about to communicate to the employers' and workers' associations for observations. I must postpone any decision until the replies from these associations have been received and considered.

TAXICABS, METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA.

Major GLYN: 88.
asked the Home Secretary what is the present total number of taximeter cabs licensed for use within the Metropolitan Police area; what is the total number of licensed drivers; and what were the corresponding figures for January, 1923 and 1920?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of motor cabs licensed in the Metropolitan Police district on the 31st January, 1926, was 8,262, and the number of motor cab drivers licensed was 10,226. On the 31st January, 1923, and on the 31st January, 1920, there were licensed in the Metropolitan Police district 7,222 and 5,547 motor cabs respectively. The number of motor cab drivers licensed in January, 1923, and January, 1920, cannot be supplied as the tabulated records have been destroyed.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take these figures carefully into consideration before he carries out his suggestion to flood the streets with these two-seater taxicabs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no suggestion of flooding the streets with two-seater taxicabs. It is simply in the interests of the public. If some people are prepared to put on two-seater taxicabs at a less price than that
charged for four-seater taxicabs it will be difficult for me to refuse a licence.

Mr. MORRISON: Is it in the interests of the public that just now another Department is reducing the number of omnibuses that ply in the streets? How can the right hon. Gentleman at the same time reduce the number of omnibuses and increase the number of taxicabs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There may be a greater demand for the taxicabs.

WOMEN AND YOUTHS (TWO SHIFTS DAY).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 89.
asked the Home Secretary how many orders have been issued to firms allowing women and youths to work on a system of two shifts in the day; and, in view of the fact that such orders were originated in wartime as an emergency action, what is the policy of the Home Office in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of Orders issued is 537. The Orders are granted under the temporary powers conferred by the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, and so long as these powers are continued in force, I propose to exercise them in all proper cases.

PUBLIC CREDITS.

Sir F. WISE: 92.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of public credit, loans, and liabilities granted since the Armistice, stating the names of the schemes, with the respective amounts of each section?

Mr. McNEILL: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is being prepared, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the course of a few days.

GOVERNMENT LOANS.

Sir F. WISE: 93.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact dates of the maturities of Government loans, internal and external, during 1927, 1928, and 1929?

Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


MATURITIES OF GOVERNMENT LOANS, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL, DURING 1927, 1928 AND 1929.


—
Date.
Security.
Amount outstanding, 31st March, 1925.(Finance Accounts, 1924–25, C. H. 116/1925.)




1927.


£


Internal
…
1st February
…
5 percent. Treasury Bonds
110,132,037




1st October
…
5 per cent. National War Bonds—Series I.
188,403,007






4 per cent. National War Bonds—Series I.
84,792,915


External
…
1st February
…
6 per cent. Central Argentine Railway Company Loan.
3,082,192 ($15,000,000)




1928.





Internal
…
1st March
…
3½ per cent. War Loan
62,713,997




1st April
…
5 per cent. National War Bonds—Series II.
132,979,779






4 per cent. National War Bonds—Series II.
39,152,95




1st September
…
5 per cent. National War Bonds—Series III.
207,865,385






4 per cent. National War Bonds—Series III.
21,370,816


External
…
20th July 1929.
…
5¼ per cent. Straits Settlements Loan
3,341,000


Internal
…
1st February
…
5 per cent. National War Bonds—Series IV.
86,012,505






4 per cent. National War Bonds—Series IV.
4,808,665




1st April
…
5½ Treasury Bonds
30,637,392


External
…
1st August …

5½ per cent. U.S.A. 10-year Gold Bonds
9,901,233 ($48,186,000)




15th November
…
5 percent. Straits Settlements Loan
4,315,000


1. 5 per cent. National War Bonds of Series I, II and III carry the right of conversion at the option of the holder into 5 per cent. War Loan; 4 per cent. National War Bonds of the same Series into 4 per cent. War Loan; and 54 per cent. U.S.A. Gold Bonds into 5 per cent. National War Bonds Series IV, 1929.


2. H.M. Government have the right to redeem 5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–47 (£1,986,985,763), and 4 per cent. War Loan (£65,860,718) at any time on or after 1st June, 1929, and 15th October, 1929, respectively, on giving three months' notice in the "London Gazette."


H.M. Government also have the option to repay the 44 per cent. War Loan, 1925–45 (£12,804,441), at any time up to 1st December, 1945, on giving three months' notice in the "London Gazette."

RUSSIA (DEBTS TO FRANCE).

Mr. WALLHEAD: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the negotiations proceeding between the French Government and the Government of Russia upon the question of the settlement of the Russian debts to France; and whether, considering the necessity for arriving at a settlement between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government upon the debt question, he is prepared to enter into negotiations with the Russian Government for such purpose?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot add anything to the answer given by my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 4th February to the hon. Member for Shoreditch.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think circumstances have somewhat changed, owing to the negotiations taking place between France and Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ACCIDENTS (ABER ROAD, OGMORE VALE).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 95.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the recent fatal and
serious accidents which have occurred on the Aber Road between Nantymoel and Ogmore Vale; if he is aware that the road is the only route for vehicular traffic between the two towns and that for a considerable distance there is no footpath for pedestrians; and, seeing that the Ogmore and Garw Urban District Council have made repeated applications to the owner of the land for the sale of a narrow strip of what is at present waste mountain land in order to make a footpath for the safety of pedestrians without result, will he take steps to remove this public danger?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My attention had not previously been drawn to these matters. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that any action on my part is necessary, as adequate powers are available to local authorities for the purpose of acquiring lands needed for improvements of this nature.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (ELECTRICAL SIGNALLING).

Mr. W. THORNE: 96.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company some time back promised to instal electrical signalling between Bow Road and Barking with a view of speeding up the train service from Barking to Aldgate; and if the company has commenced the work?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that the railway company decided last year to carry out this work. I am making inquiries as to the present position of the matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

SAIYID TALIB.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Saiyid Talib, the Iraqian Cabinet Minister, who in 1920 was deported to Ceylon without trial, has been allowed to return to Iraq or whether he is still in exile, and, if so, where; and whether he is being treated as a prisoner or his liberty is being curtailed?

Mr. AMERY: Saiyid Talib returned to Iraq on 7th May, 1925. So far as I am aware, his liberty is not being interfered with in any way.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN TYPEWRITERS.

Major GLYN: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many typewriters were imported into Great Britain during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1925; and what is the estimated annual output of typewriters made in this country?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 76,246 complete typewriters were recorded as imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1925, and 8,606 imported typewriters were exported in that year. I am sorry we have not the figures which would provide the estimated annual production of typewriters in this country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to take, if possible, the first Order on the Paper. There is a number of Votes included in it, but I do not think there are any matters of outstanding importance. I hope it will be possible to do so.
I think I ought to take this opportunity of saying that it will be necessary for the Government to take four Private Members' evenings between now and the end of the month, having regard to the financial business that must be got through before 29th March. The programme I indicated two or three days ago is rather upset by the number of Private Bills for which time has had to be found and of which I was not aware when the business of the House was first under consideration. I propose, if it be necessary—and I fear that it will be--to move a Motion early next week allocating to the Government the nights which we desire to take; and which are 16th and 17th and 23rd and 24th March.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what business will be taken on Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised, we shall be occupied in winding up Supplementary Estimates. If on consideration—I am not prepared to make
any statement to-day—it is thought desirable to have a brief discussion regarding the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Geneva, we shall take an opportunity of doing that on Thursday afternoon. I understand there is a Private Bill down for that day.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 89.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Macintyre, Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Finburgh, S.
McLean, Major A.


Albery, Irving James
Forrest, W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Apsley, Lord
Gates, Percy.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gee, Captain R.
Malone, Major P. B.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Astor, Viscountess
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. 


Atholl, Duchess of
Goff, Sir Park
Melier. R. J. 


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Balniel, Lord
Grace, John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. 


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) 


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.


Berry, Sir George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Betterton, Henry R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) 


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert 


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis 


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh 


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George 


Briggs, J. Harold
Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) 


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) 


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Philipson, Mabel 


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilcher, G. 


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Price, Major C. W. M. 


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ramsden, E. 


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) 


Campbell, E. T.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Remnant, Sir James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rentoul, G. S. 


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.A. 


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sanderson, Sir Frank 


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandon, Lord 


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. 


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Savery, S. S. 


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) 


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) 


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smithers, Waldron


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) 


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander 


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dixey, A. C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (wood Green)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Tinne, J. A.


Elveden, Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Maj,-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad. F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead. Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wright, W.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.

VINEGAR BILL,

"to prevent the fraudulent sale of liquids or products made in imitation of and purporting to be vinegar," presented by Mr. GREENE; supported by Mr. Hannon, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Burman, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Herbert Williams, and Sir Philip Dawson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS VI.

ROYAL COMMISSIONS, ETC.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,225, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and other expenses of Royal Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries, etc., including provision for Shorthand, and the Expenses of Surplus Stores, etc., Liquidation.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): This Supplementary Estimate, I think, requires very little explanation from me. In the original Estimate, in accordance with invariable custom, a small sum was put down under Subhead S to provide for any commissions which might be required during the year, and which were not specifically provided for, this sum being £2,582. This Supplementary Estimate for the sum of £6,225, is made necessary by the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry which was appointed after the original Estimate was presented. It is quite clear that when the main Estimate was framed, there was no idea in. anybody's mind of this special Royal Commission, and it would have been impossible to provide for the whole of the cost out of the small sum which I have already mentioned. The Commission met in circumstances which, as will be readily understood by the Committee, made its proceedings exceptionally expensive. To begin with, it had to do its work with as great expedition as possible. Further, it required an exceptional amount of expert assistance, and there was a good deal of necessary and unavoidable travelling. All these circumstances contributed to swell the cost
beyond what it would otherwise have been. The sum mentioned in the Estimate is the exact sum which was expended in the cost of the Commission, and it is that sum which I now ask the Committee to grant.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do so for two reasons. Firstly, I consider that the Coal Commission was not value for the money. Composed as it was, the Commission was not worth the expenditure of anything like this sum. My second reason is that I wish to take the opportunity of urging on the Committee that there can only be one solution of the mining difficulty, and that solution is nationalisation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot raise that question. It has nothing to do with the Estimate.

Mr. BATEY: I am not going to raise it; I merely mention it, but I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain some of the items in this Estimate. One is an item for £3,650 for fees to expert advisers. I wish to know how many of these advisers were called in, and who they were. Personally, I am always afraid of experts. There is always great danger, when you are dealing with any question like this, in allowing the experts to, get their fingers into the pie. This seems to be a large sum to have been spent in this way. I very much question if it is justified, and when I have had the answers to the questions which I have just put to the Financial Secretary, perhaps I may have an opportunity of saying a few words in regard to these experts. If my impression is right, some of the experts to whom this money has been paid were not worth the expenditure. I also desire to have some information as to the item of £185 for an economist. Who was that economist? In our opinion there was no need to spend one penny upon either experts or economists. There is an abundance of facts already known in connection with the coal industry, and an abundance of men who thoroughly understand the industry, and who are capable of giving all the advice necessary without involving the payment of these fees. I may remind the Committee of the fact that this Commission was not asked for by the miners, and that the miners did
not want it. As a matter of fact, we believe there have been far too many inquiries during the last few years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee to-day is not the advisability of setting up the Commission, but the expenses of the Commission after it had been set up. The question of setting up the Commission has already been settled by Parliament.

Mr. BATEY: I suggest, Sir, that if you are going to apply that rule, you will crib, cabin and confine us in the discussion. In the explanation attached to the Estimate it is pointed out that this expenditure is incurred solely in connection with the Coal Commission. I submit we are entitled to point out that this expenditure was not necessary because of the information already made available by previous Commissions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That certainly would not be in Order on this Vote.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is it not in Order to discuss the question of how the money which is being voted has been expended? If it has been expended upon experts, whose services an hon. Member regards as unnecessary, surely it is in order for that hon. Member to criticise the engagement of those experts, and the payment of this money to them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite in Order, and I did not call the hon. Member to Order when he raised that point. He was however going further, and was discussing the necessity for setting up the Commission at all, which is quite out of order.

Mr. BATEY: I am entitled to submit to the Committee that the expenditure was avoidable because we have had several inquiries in the Last few years, and from those inquiries we have had sufficient information.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That matter was dealt with when the House of Commons decided to set up the Commission, and we cannot discuss it again to-day. What is before us is the actual expenditure on the Commission after it had been set up.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. If the House sets up a Royal Commission to inquire into the coal industry
and empowers it to call for information, and if the information which it obtains is already in the archives of the Mines Department, that indicates unnecessary expenditure. In that case an hon. Member is surely in order in criticising such expenditure when it comes before us in Committee of Supply. Can he not criticise it by pointing out that there was already in the possession of the Government ample information for use by the Commission without paying this additional money?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As long as the hon. Member confines himself to the expenditure of the money while the Commission is sitting, I shall not raise any objection.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not in Order for my hon. Friend to refer to previous expenditure for the purpose of comparison with this Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: He was not doing that.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. BATEY: This Estimate is different from several other Estimates which we have discussed. In several of the Estimates, part of the money for the particular thing had been already passed by this House, but in the case of the Coal Commission there has not been a single penny previously passed. It is because there has not been any money previously passed in on the passing of this money I want to criticise the Coal Commission, and I think, on those grounds, you ought to allow me to proceed. As a matter of fact, I do not intend to enter into details either in regard to the Sankey Com mission, or the Buckmaster Inquiry, or the Macmillan Inquiry, or even this Samuel Commission or the private inquiry held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1924. I will leave those inquiries if you hold that I cannot deal with them, but I hope you will con sider me in order in criticising the composition of this Commission. It con sisted of three Commissioners, and naturally in those Commissioners—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Estimate. I do not see anything about the three Commissioners in it. If the hon. Member will
look at the Estimate, he will not find the three Commissioners mentioned.

Mr. BATEY: No; but we are voting money to the Commissioners, and I want to submit that we are entitled to discuss them, because we were naturally suspicious when the Commission was appointed. We believe that it was appointed for two purposes; one to undo the work of the Sankey Commission—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled the hon. Member out of order three times for criticising the fact that this House set up this Commission, and he must not proceed to do it.

Mr. BATEY: Then it is no use going on.

Mr. WHITELEY: The right hon. Gentleman, in asking the Committee to sanction the payment of this £6,225, did not give us any information at all, and the Estimate, as printed, leaves us without any information as to why these expenses have been incurred. For instance, you have set out here £150 for one secretary who also receives a salary as Assistant Under-Secretary in the Mines Department, and the actual payment, I think, is £90. There is no explanation about that. We want to know whether it is the practice in setting up Commissions of this kind to use the various Government Departments who are interested in a particular Commission and from which the Commission derives the bulk of its information, and whether the permanent officials in those Departments receive additional salaries for such work and for giving information which they are paid to collect from time to time, or whether this expenditure is in consequence of these people being called upon to work for a longer period, and is in the nature of a bonus or overtime. The same thing applies to the assistant secretary. Then my hon. Friend raised the question of the economist. I think we are entitled to know exactly what value the economist was to the Commission. It has cost the Commission £400 inclusive, and the actual item is £185. We who are interested want to know what value this economist was to the work of the Coal Commission, because, if you have an item of £400 in these days for this purpose, when some of our people cannot get a
decent livelihood, we want to be able to make comparisons and to justify these items to our people when we go back to our constituencies.
There is another item—No. 4 Clerks. Of course, there is a big difference between the first three items and the fourth item. What does it mean? Does it mean that the clerks who, of course, are expected to do all the donkey work, are only entitled to receive 55s. 6d.—I take it that would probably be a low-grade clerk—for the work that they have done in connection with this Commission. The same applies to shorthand-typists, typists, and messengers. If we cannot go into the policy of this, we certainly are entitled, in order to explain matters to our people when we are asked about this money that has been spent on the work of the Coal Commission, to full information as to why the money was spent, the reason for these differences, and why these sums have been paid to permanent officials of the Department who ought to be in a position to give full information to a Commission set up to inquire into the economic position of the coal industry. Before we could pass an Estimate of this kind, it is essential that we should have full information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. SCURR: I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because, when you look into this Estimate, you see that the Secretary during the period of the Commission received a sum of £150. I see by the main Estimate that the salary of the Assistant Under-Secretary in the Mines Department is £1,500. It seems to me, if you are paying a man £1,500 a year, which is certainly a living wage, rather extravagant that there should be any necessity for giving him another £150. Then when we come to the Assistant Secretary, we find that he also receives a salary as a principal in the Mines Department, and I find from the main Estimate that his salary is anything from £700 to £900 a year. Yet a further £100 is to be voted to him. It may be contended that a certain amount of extra work was thrown upon these people and that therefore they ought to be paid these sums. But when I go further down the list I find figures in the Estimate which are an absolute disgrace to a Government Department. The fact
that under any circumstances a Government Department should offer to a skilled typist a sum of 42s. 11d. a week, rising I presume to 48s. 11d. a week, is a disgrace. There is not a single firm of any standing in the city would think of offering less than 70s., and in many oases £4 a week is given. Here we have a Government Department quite prepared to vote £150 to a man already getting £1,500 and £100 to a man already getting anything from £700 to £900, and yet paying typists, who happen of course to belong to the working classes, from 42s. 11d. to 48s. 11d., shorthand typists from 50s. 1d. to 56s. 1d.—I suppose we ought to be grateful to them for including the penny—and clerks from 55s. 6d. to 65s. 6d. inclusive. I presume in a Commission of this kind that the clerks employed would be skilled. They certainly would have some knowledge of their profession, but this is a wage that would be paid to beginners, to unskilled people and not to people who had a real knowledge of their business. It seems to me that the Government on the one hand are quite prepared to give money to those who have on the old principle that
For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath,
but to the lower-paid grades they pay these miserable wages. For these reasons I am going to support the Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: In supporting the reduction that has been moved by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I also want to take exception to the spending of money upon this Commission. In the original Estimate provision was made for Commissions not specifically provided for to the amount of £2,582, and for this Commission we are asked to vote £6,225. In analysing the expenditure, I find that the great proportion of the £4,900 that we are asked to vote for salaries is taken up with the fees to expert advisers. As a matter of fact, the actual salaries work out at £1,250, whereas the fees to expert advisers total £3,650. In one of my points of Order, I suggested that in the Mines Department there must be filed away all the information that should be necessary to place before the Coal Commission in order to help them to arrive at some conclusion upon which to base any recommendations they may make to
the Government. If I am right in suggesting that, and I hold that I am, then there was no occasion for the Coal Commission to invite the opinion of experts, and thereby cost the country something like £3,650. If that particular sum were eliminated from this Vote, then the amount for the Royal Commissions not specifically provided for, £2,582, would have been there.

Mr. McNEILL: indicated dissent.

Mr. MACLEAN: If it was not there then it must have been spent upon something, but we do not know what it has been spent upon. It was taken by the Government for something that was not at the moment specifically provided for, and, if it was not there when the Coal Commission was set up, it must have been spent upon some other Commission.

Mr. McNEILL: indicated assent.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then surely the Committee is entitled to know how that money was spent, why it was spent, and the purpose for which it was spent.

Mr. McNEILL: I am quite ready to inform the hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will pass from that. I am submitting that if that sum has been spent upon some other Commission, then naturally we cannot take it into consideration. I still submit that the Treasury could have saved £3,650 by not asking the experts to give what is called expert opinion before them. We have in the Mines Department ample evidence, drawn from their own experts, and conclusions arrived at from the inquiries they have made time and time again over the entire coalfield of Great Britain, and comparisons they have made with the coalfields of other countries. All those things were there, waiting to be placed before the Royal Commission. I do not know whether the Commission invited that material to be placed before them, but, if not, I submit that they have been extravagant and that the saving of £3,650 would of itself have been a very material saving in a Vote which only amounts to £6,000 odd; it would be a saving of close upon 55 per cent. One would naturally imagine that, shorthand typists having been paid certain salaries, they were paid those salaries for doing typing and taking shorthand notes at the Commission, and yet we find—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. MACLEAN: As I was pointing out when attention was drawn to the scarcity of Members, these shorthand typists would be expected to take down shorthand notes of the evidence given by those experts. Yet we find further down in this statement of details a sum of £650 paid away for shorthand writing. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a private firm of shorthand writers was engaged for this purpose, and whether this represents the payments made to that firm for the provision of an expert shorthand clerk, with also the transcribing into typescript of the shorthand notes made by the expert shorthand clerk, or of several expert shorthand writers, because one must not expect that the physical endurance of even an expert shorthand writer could stand up to the full length of the day in listening to and taking down the notes of the experts and the questions put to those experts by members of the Commission. I assume, therefore, that if it be the case that expert assistance had to be obtained from a private firm, there would be two or more shorthand clerks, and then again there would require to be transcriptions made of those notes typed out into a form convenient to be laid before the members of the Commission when they went over the evidence given before them on any particular date. What I am concerned about is why it is necessary, if it be the case that expert assistance had to be obtained from outside, for them also to have several shorthand typists to whom such wages were being paid as are in the details before the Committee. I put those matters before the Financial Secretary, and I hope he will think they are matters which justify him in making some reference to them, but I support the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend for the reduction of the Vote, because I consider that, if some of it were necessary—and I do not doubt some of it would be—the entire sum that is submitted here was not necessary. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will take his Amendment to a Division, and, if so, I shall assist him in the Lobby.

Mr. McNEILL: With regard to the detailed work of this Commission, I do
not pretend to be as well informed as my right hon. Friend beside me, the Secretary for Mines, who will, no doubt, be able to answer in much greater detail than I can do some of the questions which hon. Members have in their minds, but to the question which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has just put, I can give an answer. The point he raised was this: that there is a sum already voted in the original Estimate of £2,582 for Commissions unforeseen, and he says, to put it generally, that if this Commission had been more economically managed, and certain items had not been incurred, that sum would have been used for the purposes of this Commission. That is not so. As a matter of fact, there is always, every year, a certain number of minor inquiries and Commissions which incur costs, and it is for that reason that this small sum is always inserted. I do not think I can give an exhaustive list, but I can tell the Committee the sort of inquiries which have been held, and which have exhausted that sum in the current year. There has been a Committee on Legal Aid for Poor Persons, a Treatment of Young Offenders (Scotland) Committee, an Exchequer (Assistance to Local Authorities) (Necessitous Urban and Quasi-Urban Areas) inquiry, a Rent Restrictions Act (Scotland) Committee, a Crown Proceedings Committee, a Sheriffs Court (Records) Committee, and some others. Those are the sort of inquiries for which that sum is provided, and it has been expended on those inquiries. Therefore, that sum in any case could not have been available.
Independently of that, there is the criticism which two hon. Members have made, that this particular inquiry might have been conducted more economically, and the special figure which they have attacked is the sum of £3,650 for fees to expert advisers. The point made was that there was already, in the possession of the Mines Department, all the information necessary for the Commission to arrive at a Report, and that, consequently, there was no occasion for this elaborate equipment of expert advisers. As I say, I do not pretend, myself, to have intimate knowledge of the working of this Royal Commission, but I cannot imagine that there is any force in that particular point. Supposing this Commission—the vast national importance of which is recognised by everybody—had
not thought it necessary to make any independent inquiry on their own account into the very intricate facts connected with the coal industry, but had been quite content to rely upon previous Reports, without even verifying them, I suppose, and certainly without bringing them up to date, I can imagine what would have been said, and not least forcibly from the other side of the House, if that course had been followed, and I had had to come here and defend such a proceeding from the Treasury point of view, and to say it had saved £3,000. I think I should have had a very unpleasant time before the criticisms of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members opposite.

Mr. MACLEAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was not talking about previous Royal Commissions, such as the Sankey Commission, but of the fact that we have now a Mines Department, with a staff collecting information, and I should imagine that the information they will have been collecting during the past two or three years would be just the kind of information necessary to lay before this Royal Commission.

Mr. McNEILL: I have no doubt that all such information has been at the disposal of the Commissioners, and that the very fullest possible use has been made of it. But that does not get over the fact that this particular inquiry, from the point of view from which it had to be conducted, required a very much fuller examination of all the circumstances and facts connected with this vast industry than the Mines Department were able to supply. I can hardly imagine that hon. Members think that Sir Herbert Samuel and his two colleagues would have deliberately gone out of their way to accumulate a vast amount of facts and collect, under very high pressure of work, a large amount of information which was quite unnecessary from the point of view of the inquiry. I do not believe that that was the case at all. The fact was that a large amount of work had to be done by independent accountants, bearing on a great number of returns in connection with the working of the various collieries, returns as to output, as to shifts worked, output per
man, wages and other costs, profit or loss per ton, and so on. All that sort of information had to be collected and sifted for the Commissioners. My information is—of course, I have to depend on my information—that a very large amount of most valuable work of that description had to be done, and was done, as a matter of fact, at very high pressure; and I submit to the Committee that for that work a sum of £3,650 is really not excessive.
The other item about which one hon. Gentleman asked me, namely, the economist, was the payment for a gentleman who was an expert professor of economics in the University of Cambridge, and he was employed as Assessor to the Commissioners themselves, so that they might have someone to whom they could turn for the interpretation of some of the very difficult and complicated points which might be put before them, and were put before them, in the course of the inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan also asked with regard to the typewriters., and the explanation of the apparent double entry on that account is this: The shorthand typists who appear on the list of salaries were typists employed by the Commissioners for the work of the office, and so forth. The hon. Gentleman, if he has had any experience of this sort of business, will know that with a great deal of necessary clerical work going on day by day two or three typists would be kept very busy, and it was for the use of the Commissioners themselves that these typists were employed. The item, Shorthand Writing, refers to the employment of reporters, who had to report the proceedings. Hon. Members can imagine it would be a pretty onerous matter, as no doubt there were a great many figures and tabular statements. It was the reporting of the actual evidence given before the Commissioners to enable them to arrive at their Report. I hope my hon. Friend will think that is a satisfactory explanation, as far as I can go, as to the Treasury point of view. If there is anything more that hon. Members want with regard to details as to the actual work of the Commission itself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines will be glad to give it.

Mr. WHITELEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he explain the first two items as to the Secretary and Assistant Secretary?

Mr. McNEILL: I did not know any explanation was required as to that. I never heard of a Commission of this sort without there being secretarial work. Someone in the position of Secretary must be at the disposal of the actual Commissioners. In those cases I think it is usual—I do not say it is invariable—to employ secretaries who, in Government employment, are familiar with the sort of work which is being done, so that they will not approach it as an entirely new job. They will naturally be able to do it very much more easily if the subject matter and the method of dealing with it are within their own experience in their ordinary work. That is the reason why the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary were taken over from the Mines Department, so that they might be familiar with the style of work they have been called upon to do.

Mr. SCURR: But who did their work in the Mines Department, for which they were already being paid while doing this other work, for which they were getting the extra money?

Mr. McNEILL: I think the hon. Member must ask that question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. BARKER: I want, first of all, to complain about the way this Estimate is presented. We have got no information whatever as to the number of sittings that this Commission has held. I do not know why there should be this undue haste to present this Estimate. If the Committee had had the Estimate presented after the Commission had finished its work, we should have had some idea as to the value of the work that had been done. I do not know how many sittings the Commission has held, but I do know that since the Commission was appointed 160 days have elapsed, including Sundays, and, in my opinion, this sum of £6,225 is altogether inordinate to the work that is being done. We are told that there are one secretary, one assistant secretary, one economist, four clerks, two shorthand typists, one typist, and two temporary messengers, but as to the big items in the Estimate, there is no information what-
ever. There is an item of £500 for "Clerical Assistance and Overtime." We are not told what clerical assistance was required, or how many extra clerks were necessary.
Then we come to the item, "Fees to Expert Advisers, £3,650." How many expert advisers have there been engaged in this work? How is it we are not told that? It would be interesting to know where to-day are the gentlemen who are so interested in economy. I am sorry the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) is not here, because he is very much interested in this particular subject. I find that, supposing the Commission had sat every day since it was appointed, including Sundays and Christmas Day, it would have had no less than £20 a day for expert advice. We think it simply monstrous. It is pre-posterous that a sum of money like this should be expended in this way without any information whatever being given. Then we come to the fees that are paid to the poor temporary messengers. How these temporary messengers can live on 29s. a week passes my comprehension, and it is simply scandalous for the Minister to present such an Estimate. They must either obtain poor relief or be ex-service men with pensions, with which they manage to eke out an existence. The disparity in this Estimate is most striking, and it is commensurate with the scanty information the Government gave in presenting the Estimates. I do not know why the Financial Secretary should reply, when he confessed at once he knew nothing at all about it. He said the Secretary for Mines knows a great deal about it. We shall be very interested when he comes to give this information. If he knows all about it, he should have presented the Estimate, and not get one to present it who knew nothing at all about it.
As a matter of fact, this Estimate was brought on at a rush moment. The Government thought they were going to rush it through the Committee because it was presented before four o'clock in the afternoon. I am very glad the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), at any rate, was here to take exception to this Estimate. It is the most slovenly Estimate ever presented to this House. I, personally, cannot too strongly condemn the way it has been
presented, and I shall have the very greatest pleasure in supporting the reduction. As a matter of fact, I wish I could abolish the Estimate altogether, because I agree with what has been said before, that the whole expenditure is unnecessary. The pigeon-holes of the Government are packed with information about the mining industry, but nothing has been done. Whether that will be the result of this Commission, time will very shortly reveal. But with reference to the Estimate, I say it reflects no honour on the Treasury that the biggest items in the Estimate are altogether deficient in any information whatever.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: My first question to the Secretary for Mines is, Who was responsible for the appointment of the expert advisers? I am not satisfied that he had the very best people to advise the Commission in connection with matters appertaining to the mining industry. Can he give us a list of the names and the qualifications of the so-called experts who were called in? I should like to know how many of the practical miners who are employed at the coal face, who know considerably more about the mining industry than a number of the experts, were called in to offer -practical and expert advice upon the position of the mining industry. I do not know of a single practical miner who was called in by the Commission. During these days of so-called ca' canny in the mining industry, it would be very interesting if the miner actually working at the coal face were called in to advise the Commission as to what is really wrong with the mining industry. I well remember a previous Commission which dealt with the position of the practical miner, and in their Report they said that for a generation the miner has been technically and socially educated. This is a great national asset. Was it used during the course of this Commission? I do not believe that one out of the 1,100,000 miners employed in the industry who had any practical experience was called in to give advice to the Commission in dealing with an industry such as this. There is another item, "Travelling and Incidental Expenses," for which there is a sum of £675 set aside. I would like to ask the Secretary for Mines what that really means? Who did the travelling? I understand
the Commission travelled. Who selected the collieries to be visited, and what coal areas and coal districts were visited? How many collieries in each of the areas were visited? We have to realise that the conditions in Scotland are considerably different from those in
Northumberland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better wait for the Report of the Commission to learn all these facts

Mr. HALL: It arises on these Estimates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But it is quite impossible now to go into all the questions as to what districts the Coal Commission visited.

Mr. HALL: With all due respect, this is an item of £675 for travelling and incidental expenses.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, but no one can tell where the Commission went until they report.

Mr. HALL: We are asking for the information from the Secretary for Mines. We would like to know what collieries were visited, who arranged for the visits, and why the collieries were selected in the way they were? There are many cases in South Wales where you have some of the most efficient collieries almost adjacent to those that are absolutely obsolete. I would like to know whether the efficient collieries and the collieries not efficient were visited by the Commission when this expenditure was incurred? I feel very concerned, because I am not so sure that every district was visited. I am not sure that the most efficient and the least efficient collieries were visited. I would like the Secretary for Mines to give us the necessary information, because I do feel, with my colleagues, that this £675 has been absolutely wasted. You can go on having your Commissions and inquiries, but the only way to deal with the mining industry, as it should be dealt with, would be to put into operation the findings of the Commission of 1919.

Mr. KELLY: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) I would like to have some explanation of the figures that are here presented to us. We have an item which has been spoken of by one or two of my hon. Friends as
to expert advisers. I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines why it is that we have this difference drawn between expert advisers and economists? Was he reckoned amongst those who could give expert advice, or was he considered outside the category altogether, and so had to have a line to himself? I should also like to ask who and what are these expert advisers? It seems unfair that we should be asked to pass this afternoon a figure of £3,650 for fees to expert advisers without knowing whether there were two, three, six, seven people, or more who were to receive expenditure, as has been pointed out, equal to about £500 a week for the time the Commission was sitting.
Surely there ought to be something more than the mere statement of the fees to expert advisers? There is surely more than that amount of explanation at the disposal of the Secretary for Mines? Even the sifting of what we have already heard should have in itself saved a considerable amount of cost for this particular work. In regard to wages there are four clerks who are, I notice, paid a wage of 55s. 6d., rising by 2s. 6d. per annum to 65s. 6d. How many of these four clerks are at the bottom or at the top? Then I would ask the Secretary for Mines how does he justify, in the case of a Commission which has to deal with low wages paid in a particular industry, or attempt to justify a wage of 55s. 6d. No human being in this country could live anything like a reasonable standard of life, or approaching it, on a wage of 55s. 6d. or even 65s. 6d., taking the higher rate. That, however, is not the worst. We find there are two shorthand typists. I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he can justify a wage of 50s. 1d. to these two typists? In my opinion it is a sweating and inadequate wage for the Government at this time to pay. It shows that in the payment of wages the Government are not much above some of the worst employers in the country at the present time. Take, again, the temporary messengers. Reference has been made to their wage of 29s. It is a little better than that, because there is a bonus attaching to it. If, however, we add the bonus to the wages we find even then that these two messengers' wages are a great deal less than the gratuity which is paid out to the assistant secretary of
£60, or the secretary of £90; both of whom already have a fairly high salary.
How can the Government, or the Department, justify itself in paying a wage of 29s. 6d. a week even with the Civil Service bonus added? The matter of travelling expenses is one about which I should like to ask, and the incidental expenses. Were these incurred by the members of the Commission or by the members of the staff? Surely we ought to have some details and not this bare figure of £675. Perhaps I would not be out of order in referring to the fact that Government auditors have disallowed expenses which were put down in the form that this is put down. It is unfair to the House that the Committee should be asked to pass through an item of £675 for travelling or incidental expenses without the slightest explanation as to how it has been spent, or where. We had the figure for shorthand writing drawn attention to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). Is this sum paid to some firm of shorthand writers for reporting the conference, or are these shorthand writers in the employ of the Government? We might have been told that in the presentation of the Estimates. From the figure we cannot tell whether it is a reasonable figure or not, or whether it is an excessive charge for work which had to be undertaken for the Commission. I hope we shall have some explanation of these figures. I hope we shall hear the Secretary for Mines tell us whether or not he can justify the sweated wages that are paid to the clerks, the shorthand typists, and the messengers engaged in the service of the Coal Commission.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I shall endeavour to reply as briefly as I can to the questions which have been put by hon. Members. The Committee will be good enough, of course, to realise that I would not be in Order in roaming over the whole field of the operations of the Commission at the present moment, or of their Report, which, it is hoped, will be ready in a few-days' time. Perhaps hon. Member's will be good enough to wait for that Report. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me about the shorthand writing, he asked how many sittings there had been, and he suggested that the amount was altogether excessive.

Mr. BARKER: Altogether excessive, I said.

Colonel LANE FOX: Perhaps hon. Members have no idea of the work or the value of that work which has been done by the Commission. I would put it to them that it would not have been possible for them to have suggested that the Commission should be stinted of staff in any way. If they knew the whole-hearted way in which the members of the Commission have thrown themselves into the work, working night and day in order to achieve the result it is hoped may bring peace to the coal industry they would, I fancy, take a somewhat different view. When it is considered that the Commission were endeavouring to go thoroughly into the whole trouble in the coal industry, I think no one would be inclined to refuse what help was necessary, to get out information or provide staff or anything else that was required. The work was very, very heavy and I think it is really creditable that the expenditure should have been kept so low. Reference was made by one hon. Member to the fees for expert advisers. These men had to get out full reports on individual colliery undertakings. The Commission required a great deal of information from them. The Commission desired information about profits, output, and a host of details connected with individual collieries, and this, involving most intricate figures and so on, had to be got out.

Mr. KELLY: How many were employed on that?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am afraid I cannot give the actual number of persons employed. The work was widespread and the appropriate firms were employed as required. As regards the shorthand writing, the work was placed in the hands of Mr. George Moore, a well-known firm. As regards the experts, an hon. Member opposite complained that not one practical working miner was called, amongst the experts, to give evidence. May I, however, say this, that the Miners' Federation were at perfect liberty to call what evidence they wished, and they themselves did not bring a working miner to give evidence before the Commission. They could have done so if they wished; the Commission called for what witnesses the two parties required, and they had every opportunity afforded them. I was
also asked how many sittings of the Commission had taken place. The Commission sat for 33 full days, and considerably over 17,000 questions were recorded in the evidence. So far as travelling expenses are concerned, the Commissioners were requested by the Miners' Federation to inquire into a number of individual collieries which were reported to be inefficient, and inspectors had to be sent down to report as to the condition of these collieries. The travelling expenses also include the visits of the Commission and their staff to certain coalfields—visits which were arranged with the parties and to suit the needs of the Commission.
I think, perhaps, I have about answered all the questions which have been put to me, except one put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) as to the wages of the messengers. All I can say in reply to that is that they are paid on the Treasury scale, for which my Department is not responsible.

Mr. KELLY: Messengers are paid on this scale, no matter to what Department they belong?

Mr. BROMLEY: The right hon. Gentleman would not call those wages, would he?

Colonel LANE FOX: I thought some questions had been addressed to me about the wages in these Estimates.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. WHITELEY: I think it was unfair of the Secretary for Mines to suggest that Members on this side were against the spending of money for the purpose of ascertaining the true economic position of the mining industry, and, also, I did expect the Secretary for Mines to give us some of the information which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not able to give because it was outside his Department. We were told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the fees were paid to the expert advisers because they had to collect information with regard to output, the number of men employed, wages costs, the costs other than wages, royalties, and so on. All this information is in the possession of the Mines Department today. They get it regularly under the existing agreement.

Colonel LANE FOX: I have already explained that this was for information which was asked for by the Commission, and which the Mines Department had to get for them.

Mr. WHITELEY: If this information was not already in the possession of the Department, could the Secretary for Mines tell us exactly what the additional information was? We know that detailed statements are made by the collieries from time to time, and we think that if the Secretary for Mines had called for that detailed information from the collieries there would have been no need to engage expert accountants at a cost of £3,650 simply to make tabulations from lists which were already prepared and have been furnished since 1921. If the Secretary for Mines would tell us what extra information it was that the Commission required, I should be prepared to agree that it was essential they should be supplied with it; but the trouble is that neither in the previous estimate nor in this have we been able to get an explanation as to what the further information was which could not be supplied without this extra expenditure. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained that it was essential for the Commission to have an expert economist at hand to assist in explaining various details which, naturally, the members of the Commission could not promptly understand. So far from wishing to stint the granting of money to enable the Commission to secure full information, what we say is that if it was essential to have an economist, it was even more essential that there should be a practical man sitting at their left hand to point out the difficulties that are being created through the industry not being worked on a proper basis. A practical man could have given far more information than any economist from a university. I have only intervened on this second occasion because I feel information is being kept from us which we are entitled to have, and that the taxpayers' money ought not to be spent unless members know exactly what it is being spent upon.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It is not a question with us of raising issues that will arise in the Report of the Commission, for which the whole nation is waiting this week. No Members on this side are raising that issue in this Debate, but we are entitled to a fuller explanation from
the Secretary of Mines as regards details of the expenditure. As to the expert advisers, the Secretary for Mines has told us that accountants were appointed as expert advisers. I am just wondering whether one of those expert accountants was Charlie Markham.

Mr. KELLY: He is expert enough.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes, he is a double expert, and I wish to know if Charles Markham's fees are in this item, because if he is one of the experts I feel quite sure that an ordinary fee would never be able to pay him.

Colonel LANE FOX: indicated dissent.

WESTWOOD: Mr.
I am glad to realise from that shake of the head that Charles Markham is not one of the experts. I hope he will be paid quite well when the Report comes out. We have been told they were expert accountants, and, if that is so, this item is wrong, because it speaks of "expert advisers" when it ought to be expert accountants. Whilst we are willing to see money spent so long as it is spent wisely and well—we are not complaining about the amount of money—yet we are entitled to ask what these expert accountants know about the methods, in many cases, of payment of wages to miners. Miners would have been far better able to explain to the Commission the way in which the wonderful pay lists are made out. They are made out so well on some occasions that I have known of an instance where a man was asked to take money to the pay office to pay for the stamp which it was necessary to put on, because, although the stamp had to be there, he had no money to take home, deductions having swallowed up more than the sum on his pay list.
We complain, and are entitled to complain, about the low wages which have been paid to some of those engaged in doing work for the Commission. According to the amazing reply, as it seems to us, of the Secretary for Mines, it is not he who has the power to decide what wages or salaries are to be paid to these workers; that it was a matter for the Treasury. Are we to understand that the Treasury fixed these wages in accordance with the wages being paid to miners? That seems to have been their standard. We have heard no justification; we have had only an explanation from the Minis-
ter that he is not responsible for the miserably low wages paid to these workers; but, as bad as those wages are, there are miners doing a full week's work in the mines at the present time who are actually being paid less than these workers for whom we are pleading.
Who were these expert advisers? Will the accounts of these accountants be open for inspection by Members; because there are a good many accountants who put in accounts who would require to have accountants to go over the accounts of these accountants for the purpose of enabling us to see that no unjust payments are being made? I trust we shall have a further explanation from the Secretary as to who these experts are who receive this large sum of money. But while we are asking for that explanation, we are entitled to let the Committee know that we are not complaining about the money that is being spent, because we believe it will have been well spent on the purpose of trying to sift out evidence and getting us some way towards the removal of the difficulties which face the mining industry at the present moment.

Mr. BARKER: I should like the Secretary for Mines to withdraw this Estimate until he can give us some more information. In his meagre reply he stated that he was not able to give us much information at present, and I think he ought not to ask the Committee for the taxpayers' money until he is prepared to give the taxpayers full information as to the necessity there was for its expenditure. I put one specific question to him which he has not answered. I asked him how many expert advisers were engaged on this work, and he said nothing at all about it; nor did he say anything to justify the payment of scandalously low wages to these other employés. He told us the Commission sat for 33 days. If there were 33 sittings, then the expenditure works out at £188 per day, and I say that is a ridiculous sum of money. What has the Commission done to spend this large sum of money in 33 days? There is

the sum of £110 per day for the expert advisers. £110 per day! What were their qualifications that they should be paid this extraordinary remuneration? It is of no use for the Secretary for Mines Mines to sit there mute. We do not want muteness; we want explanations. It is of no use for the Secretary for Mines to get up with that nice bland smile of his and say that some of this matter is privileged. That is no good to us. We have to see that this money is properly expended, and I say the criticism that has been levelled against this Estimate has not been met by him.

Mr. SCURR: I put a specific question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he said that while he could not answer it, it would be answered by the Secretary for Mines. That question has not been answered, however. It was this: While the Secretary and Assistant Secretary were engaged in doing work for this Royal Commission, who was doing their work, for which they were receiving pay, in the Mines Department?

Colonel LANE FOX: I agree that I did forget to answer that question. A very large portion of their time was entirely engaged by the Commission, and during that time we had to carry on in the Department as best we could, but we were bound to supply the very best men we had to help the Commission, and I think nobody should grudge the item that is shown on this Estimate for the extra work they did. Those men have been working night and day, and if the House realised the work they have been doing this money would not be voted in any grudging spirit.

Mr. BATEY: rose—

Colonel LANE FOX: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 253: Noes, 95.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[5.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Astor, Viscountess
Bennett, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Atkinson, C.
Berry, Sir George


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Blundell, F. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Boothby, R. J. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis 


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T. 


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh 


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George 


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K. 


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perring, Sir William George 


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) 


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Philipson, Mabel 


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilcher, G. 


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip 


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Power, Sir John Cecil 


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ramsden, E.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holland, Sir Arthur
Remer, J. R.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd. Whiteh'n)
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandeman, A. Stewart 


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Clarry, Reginald George
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sandon, Lord


Cobb, Sir Cyril
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Savery, S. S. 


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) 


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Skelton, A. N. 


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) 


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe, Sir Hebert
Lamb, J.Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) 


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Templeton, W. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edwards John H. (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macintyre, Ian
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. 


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fermoy, Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, S. R.


Finburgh, S.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple 


Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) 


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) 


Gee, Captain R.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) 


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Winby. Colonel L. P.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-CIive, Lieut.-Colonel George 


Goff, Sir Park
Moore. Sir Newton J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl 


Grace, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut,-col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Withers, John James


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. 


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsfd.) 



Hanbury, C
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Cope and Capt. Margesson.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, Walter
Batey, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Barr, J.
Bromley, J.




Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Livingstone, A. M.
Snell, Harry


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Rose, Frank H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.


Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,125, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 259.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E. 


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) 


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Connolly. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. 


Crawfurd, H E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C. 


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, David (Montgomery)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J. 


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter 


Gillett, George M
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Greenail, T.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Purcell, A. A.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Viscountess
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) 


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Atholl, Duchess of
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-


Albery, Irving James
Atkinson, C.
Berry, Sir George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft 


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Fredrick George


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Perring, Sir William George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Lieut,-Col. V.L. (Bootle)
Philipson, Mabel


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Heneage, Lieut.-col. Arthur P.
Pilcher, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Buckingham. Sir H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Maryleborne)
Raine, W.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k,Nun.)
Remer, J. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Remnat. Sir James.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ropner, Major L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A.U.M.(Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Russel, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
ilife, Sir Edward M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Lieut,-Colonel Hon F. S.
Sandon, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandswoth, Cen'l)
Sasson, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jacob, A. E.
Savery, S. S.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, R. G.(Yerks, W.R., Sowerby)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Skelton, A. N.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers Waldron


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somervile, A. A. (Windsor)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dalzlel, Sir Davison
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Locker-Lampson, Com.O.(Handsw'th)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Hon. O.F.G.(Westm'eland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. P.D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, James Matcolm Monteith
Macintyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Lt.-Col A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Waner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden. E. B.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Finburgh, S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.
Wiggins, Williams Martin


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gee, Captain R.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G.(Reading)


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Miline, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wilson M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Grace, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol,N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Withers, John James


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Murchison, C. K.
Womersley, W. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E.(Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Hebert
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hanbury, C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.



Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Cope and Major Hennessy.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. McNEILL: claimed, "That the Original Question put."

CLASS IV.

NATIONAL LIBRARY, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Library.

Mr. McNEILL: This Estimate is not one in connection with which I have to ask the Committee for any money at all. It is put down only for the purpose of maintaining Parliamentary control. What has occurred is already known, at any rate to hon. Members who come from Scotland. For some time past there had been mooted the idea of the Advocates' Library in Edinburgh being taken over as a national institution, but, for reasons of economy, that proposal was not carried out for a considerable time. Last year, after the Estimates for the year had been framed, Sir Alexander Grant, as many hon. Members know, came forward with a very munificent gift of £100,000 for the endowment of this Library, if the Government would take it over and manage it as a national concern. That was an offer which, of course, the Government could not, and would not, refuse, and, making grateful acknowledgment to the munificent donor, an Act was passed last Session to carry out that object. The appointed day, under that Act, was the 26th October. From that date up to the present time that Library has been a national library for Scotland, and, of course, the costs of it are Government costs. For example, the salaries, as hon. Members will find set out on the back of the Estimate, for that period, are put down, because, from the appointed day, those who were employed in the management and care of the Library became civil servants, and, consequently, now look to the State for their remuneration. But, as I have said, there is no actual money to pass, because the endowment fund to which I have referred more than covers the cost for the present year. It is only to enable the House of Commons to exercise control and make the necessary appropriations that it has been necessary to put this Estimate down at all.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I rise only for the purpose of expressing appreciation from this side of the Committee of
the arrangement which the Financial Secretary has just described. I think there will be no irregularity on the part of two of the trustees, namely, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself, in making reference to the matter at this time. This development has been rendered possible by the handsome gift made by Sir Alexander Grant some time ago, which has enabled us to form, in connection with this library in Scotland, an endowment fund out of which, as I understand it, the expense of maintaining the library will be found in future years. The only point, which emerges on this Estimate, is that provision is made, in the Paper before the Committee, for covering the outgoings from the 26th October last until the end of the present financial year, and the Financial Secretary takes, as an appropriation against that, practically the same sum, which is forthcoming from the Endowment Trust. The question I would like to ask is this: Assuming, as I think we must assume in this case, that all the expenditure will be fully met out of the Endowment Trust in years to come will any statement be made to the House of Commons at all such as will enable us from time to time to review the proceedings here? I do not make that suggestion because anyone in the House of Commons desires to review the proceedings of the trustees, but only in order to make it perfectly plain that the House of Commons will have some opportunity of being assured that this Advocates' Library, or, as it now is, the National Library of Scotland, marches on to become a definitely public institution, and thus achieves our ideal of completing the scheme of the educational system of our country. I have no doubt that either the Financial Secretary or the Lord Advocate will be able to assure Scottish Members on that point, and I dare say, if such an assurance is forthcoming, there will not be very much Debate on this, one of the happiest Estimates which has been presented.

Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps I may say a word with reference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has said. I confess that the point had not occurred to me up to the present as to whether a Vote should be put down year by year or not. I am glad to think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that
the actual costs will be covered by the Endowment Fund. I do not want at the present moment to give a pledge, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied if I say I entirely agree with him in thinking that, in some form or other, the matter ought to be brought before the House, in order that the House may review the management and costs of administration. I could not, however, at the present moment, say exactly in what way that will be done.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put this question to the Secretary of State for Scotland? In former times, before this library was taken over as a National Library for Scotland—as I hope it will be, as distinguished from a purely private library such as it has been hitherto—the maintenance of that library was very largely dependent upon sums of money paid by young advocates, or by those who were in training to become advocates. They had to pay a considerable sum of money, a portion of which, I understand, went to maintain the library under the old arrangement. I would like to ask either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Advocate whether, now that this library is taken over and paid for out of an enowdment fund, there will be any reduction in the fees that will be chargeable for the training of young advocates in the legal profession in Scotland?

Mr. MAXTON: On this Vote I only want to say a word or two. When the Bill was before the House, some of us pressed very strongly for a larger Labour representation on the board of trustees, and the Secretary for Scotland met us to some very limited extent on that matter. In this Estimate I do not see any item which would cover the cost of travelling or other expenses incurred by trustees attending the annual meetings. I hope that the trustees who have been chosen will be active, and not merely decorative, trustees, and that they will take a real interest in the progress and development of the library; and I hope that no member of the board of trustees will be debarred from taking that active part in the work of controlling and directing the policy of the library by lack of the necessary money to enable him to travel and attend the meetings. I would like to know if in this Vote provision is made for the
travelling and other expenses of the members of the board.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), the question of the fees payable by advocates is not one which concerns the National Library, but is one purely for the Faculty of Advocates.

Mr. MACLEAN: Let us be quite clear. When this Library was taken over, and an endowment fund was set up by the gift of Sir Alexander Grant, the cost of its maintenance, which had formerly fallen upon the advocates, and for which those who were in training as advocates had to pay a considerable sum, was entirely removed from them. If the Library is now being maintained out of an endowment fund, and the costs of its maintenance are entirely taken away from the advocates, it is common sense to consider that the sums that were paid by advocates in training will now be reduced by that portion which was formerly taken for the Library. That is the point that I want to be sure about. Otherwise, it means that young lawyers coming from poor families are going to be as much handicapped in the future as they have been in the past, when they had to pay a large sum for the Library.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is quite right in saying that this is a matter for the Faculty, and is not a matter that concerns the National Library. It is quite true that, of the entrance fees paid by advocates, and of the annual fees which members of the Faculty pay, a certain amount represented the cost of upkeep of the Library, and the matter is one which I know is being taken into consideration by the Faculty at the present time, but it is not a matter that concerns the present Vote. It is also to be borne in mind that the advocates will still have a Law Library of their own at the Law Courts, which is reserved for them and which still has to be kept up. These, however, are all matters which affect the Faculty alone.

Mr. MACLEAN: I take that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman to mean that it is being considered by the Faculty.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I see that an assistant librarian is to have a salary of 25s. a week, and I see other salaries of £150 and £225. It seems to me that 25s. a week for a person designated assistant librarian is altogether an inadequate wage and one which I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland is not going to defend. The Financial Secretary states that those persons are now becoming civil servants. That means that they are now in the direct employment of the Government. I should like to hear from him some defence of a wage of 25s. for an assistant librarian. I should also like to know the ages and qualifications of the persons who are to receive wages of that kind. I should also like an assurance that any temporary clerks who may be employed will at least be employed on fairly adequate wages to maintain them in decency and comfort.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I should like to ask if the fund will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the last question, I am afraid I do not know. As regards wages and salaries, these are matters which, no doubt, will be very carefully considered and, no doubt, the terms will be the same as in similar Government offices in Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In fixing wages, will the Government take into consideration what is paid by the Edinburgh Corporation to its librarian and assistant? Will it at least be the same wage as other cities in Scotland pay to their librarians?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The attention called to these facts by the hon. Member will no doubt cause the matter to be carefully investigated.

Mr. McNEILL: In reference to what I said just now to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), naturally the question does not arise unless there is a balance of costs to be met. In that case a Vote will be put down and the House will be asked to vote the balance required. Whether that be so or not, the Estimate will be put down to enable the House to express an opinion.

Mr. MAXTON: I wonder if the Secretary of State for Scotland could answer my point about the expenses that might be incurred.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware that any question of this has been raised, but no doubt it will be considered.

Mr. MAXTON: The last man who is likely to raise such a point is the man who would be most seriously affected. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the matter is raised, so that a person who wanted to do the work but was debarred because of poverty would not be handicapped in that way?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot imagine that there is any likelihood of such a thing occurring.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do I understand there is no likelihood of a workman being appointed to this post?

CLASS VI.

IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for certain Salaries and Expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, including Purchase of Land in the United Kingdom, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial War Graves Commission Fund, formed under Royal Charter, 10th May, 1917, and a Contribution towards an Endowment Fund.

Mr. McNEILL: I should like to explain how this matter arises. Before the end of the War a Commission was set up to manage the cemeteries on all those fields of battle in different parts of the world where British subjects had fallen, and were buried. I am sure every hon. Member feels that this was a matter to which the fullest possible respect should be given, and that those cemeteries deserve the most respectful treatment and the greatest possible care for their provision in the future. A Royal Charter issued in 1917 brought into being the War Graves Commission, which was empowered to establish an endowment fund and to appoint trustees for its management. For some time, of course, it was not felt that it was possible to begin accumulating There was a very large initial outlay in the preparation and care of these numerous, and some of them very large cemeteries, but in the summer of 1925 the various Governments concerned, that is
to say, all the Governments of the British Empire, including British India, agreed that the time had now arrived when it would be wise to begin accumulating the fund until it reached a capital sum which would provide in perpetuity an income sufficient to maintain these cemeteries as the nation desires them to be maintained. It was estimated that the necessary sum for this purpose would be somewhere about £200,000 to £250,000 a year, which would mean a capital sum in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000 sterling. In order to carry out our part of that agreement—because we are entirely confined to our own part—I have to ask the Committee to pass this Vote. The Government have to provide, under the terms of the Charter, 81.52 per cent. of the cost. That percentage is arrived at in this way. From the first the various Governments concerned—the United Kingdom, the Dominions and British India—have borne the cost of management in proportion to the numbers of their own graves, and this country is therefore responsible for their proportion of the cost.
When this matter was considered with a view to this Estimate in the Treasury, it was found that under our existing law it would not be possible to form the fund in the way proposed, by trustees until it reached the sum of £5,000,000. Therefore it was found necessary to proceed by Act of Parliament, and a Bill for that purpose has been introduced and the House will be asked to give it a Second Reading almost immediately. In the meantime, in order to provide the sum necessary for our first contribution towards the accumulation, this Estimate is put before the Committee. I want to emphasise the fact That this is the first contribution to a capital sum which will be gradually built up on a scheme which has been agreed upon between the various Governments but over which, of course, the House from year to year will exercise its own discretion and control. At all events, what the Government propose is to ask the House to vote £50,000 for the purpose this year and to vote the same sum for the next two years, and after that the magnitude of the contribution will be enlarged according to the scheme, and it is hoped that at the end of 15 years by the accumulation of interest
on these grants, and the contributions which will come from the Dominion Governments, we shall arrive at a sum of £5,000,000, that is to say, if it is necessary to accumulate to that extent. It will always be open to the Governments concerned to say if they think a smaller sum than £5,000,000 will be sufficient. In the meantime, the scheme is to accumulate up to £5,000,000, and we are asking the Committee now to make the first provision for it. I do not know that there is any question likely to arise on this Estimate beyond what I have already stated, but the Secretary of State for War who, of course, is more nearly concerned with the matter than I am, is here, and I have no doubt he will be able to deal with any question that arises. I feel that in present circumstances this is a very substantial sum to ask Parliament to vote at the end of the financial year, but nevertheless it is an object which will have the entire sympathy of hon. Members in every part of the House.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to raise a point which has been put before me by one of my constituents. I think, according to the Charter, monuments are to be erected over the graves of soldiers who have died, if it is desired by their families. Owing to the fact that the Charter evidently only extends to the end of the War, which is officially declared to have terminated on 31st August, 1921, no memorial will be erected over the grave of any soldier who has died since that date. We may, therefore, possibly have the position that two widows have each been drawing a pension from the Ministry on behalf of their husbands. In the one case, because the husband died before this date, a memorial will be erected over his grave, but if the other died in 1924 his widow, on making application to the Commission, is informed that no memorial can be placed over her husband's grave. Can it not be arranged that there shall be an extension, so that there can be no sense of grievance on the part of any widow whose husband was killed or who died as a result of service in the War? It seems to me that the case has been made out perfectly in the one instance just as in the other by the Ministry of Pensions paying pension to the woman, and surely she is entitled to have this token of
national respect by the erection of a monument on her husband's grave, just as her neighbour, without any question. I would like the Secretary of State for War to say whether arrangements could be made in the Bill to that effect, or could he suggest some way whereby there could be this extension made in order to avoid any sense of grievance? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was very illuminating in his speech, and I do not want to raise any discordant note, but I would like some assurance that means will be taken in order to avoid any sense of grievance and that the Government will take steps in that direction.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: We are all sympathetic respecting the case mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I take it that the matter will be considered by the War Graves Commission who, possibly, may make some recommendation. I do not want to criticise the work in any way. It is a work which commends itself to the House and to the Empire as a whole, because it is a fulfilment of the pledge made to the relatives that the last resting place of their dear ones would be properly looked after. It is gratifying to know that all the Dominions are taking a part in this guarantee. I presume that similar legislation will be introduced in the Dominions in order to provide that a fixed sum shall be contributed annually. I have had an opportunity of seeing a draft of the Bill that will be brought forward, and the only exception that I would like to take to it is with respect to the investment of the fund. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War can explain the reason for confining the investment under the Bill to Government securities in this country. As this is a matter which affects the whole of the Dominions, that provision might be amended in order to allow investments to be made in the securities of the British Empire, or in trustee securities. It might be construed as an implied reflection upon the securities of the other countries. I should be glad if the Secretary of State for War could give us some idea of the number of graves involved. I understand that something like 600,000 graves have to be attended to and that they are scattered over France, Gallipoli, and other parts of the world, Holland and elsewhere where
fighting activities did not actually take place.

Mr. PALING: I should like to raise a point in regard to the children of the men who have been taken over to France to keep the graves in order. A considerable number of these men have gone over there and, in a good number of cases, they have sent for their wives and families, in view of the fact that they will probably be there for a good many years. A question was asked some months ago as to what provision is being made for the education of the children while in France. I believe the answer was, that the French authorities were making as good provision for the education of these children as they did for the education of the children of French people. These British men, however, are rather afraid that because no particular provision is made for the teaching of the English language in the French schools their children will not have an opportunity of learning the language they desire. The question was asked with a view to ascertaining what was being done in providing education upon these lines for these children. I would like the Secretary of State for War to tell us whether extra provision has been made on behalf of the children whose parents have expressed a great desire that such education should be at their disposal.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have been asked whether the graves of those who died since the termination of the War cannot be dealt with in the same way as the graves of those who died during the War. I regret that I cannot tell the hon. Member what has occurred in the past. I am not sure whether the Charter limits the activities of the Commission to the graves of those who died during the War. I do not want my hon. Friend to take it from me as definite, but I think their power is limited to the graves of those who died during the War. That is not from want of respect to those who died after the War, but the fact is that they are not empowered to go beyond that.

Mr. STEPHEN: I have a definite statement from the Secretary of the War Graves Commission that that is so; that their Charter only extends to those who died before the 31st August, 1921. I
would like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he could not arrange, while this endowment fund is being put through, that there should be a co-ordinating action to extend the Charter in order that there may be full respect paid to all who have been the victims of the War.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that nothing that one can do in connection with this Estimate can possibly extend to the Charter. They are two different things and do not run together. Other action would have to be taken, and the case would have to be considered on its merits, in regard to the extension of the Charter.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter and see whether anything can be done?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but I do not want him to think I am pledging myself in any way, because I have not been able to consider it except in the last few moments. The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) asks how many graves are being looked after by the Commission. The actual figures of the graves of British soldiers, apart from the Dominions, is 603,420. I think the total is 725,000, including the Dominions. With regard to the draft Bill and the Investment Clause being limited to British securities—

Sir N. MOORE: United Kingdom securities.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Investment Clause refers to contributions made, not by the Dominions, but by this House, including the Vote before the Committee to-day. The proper time to raise that point will be when the Clause is before the House. I will note my hon. Friend's suggestion. With respect to the education of the children of the men who are in charge of the graves, I cannot give any further information than we gave in answer to the question which was put previously. I cannot undertake the education of English children in France, indeed, not only in France, but all over the Continent and all over the world. If the parents, quite naturally, have their children with them, the children must rely
partly on the education which their parents can give them and partly on the education which is given in the foreign countries in which they are residing. It is impossible for the War Graves Commission to undertake to set up schools all over the Continent for the purpose of teaching small groups of English children there.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that in some places in France—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This question of the education of children is out of order on this Vote.

Mr. GOSLING: The question of the graves is one in which I am very personally interested. The point raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has been a matter of serious concern for the Commission. The difficulty is that the Charter prevents anything being done at the present time. The Dominions are already doing what the hon. Member suggests. While we are debarred by the official date of the termination of the War, the Dominions are going beyond that date and dealing with all those who lost their lives in consequence of the War. One is particularly interested, because of the wonderful spirit of equality of treatment and sacrifice so readily accepted by everybody.
With respect to the proposed endowment fund, there are many people who are anxious about the welfare of the graves. The endowment fund will have the effect of putting these people at rest in their minds for all time that the graves will always be kept in order, despite any change of feeling that may arise in years to come on the part of people who are not so deeply affected as we are. When we get the £5,000,000 endowment fund, we can be sure that the graves will last for hundreds of years and that they will not be allowed to get into a state of bad repair, which would be a calamity in view of the way in which they are now being preserved. Whatever party changes there may be in the future, this endowment fund will receive its contributions, and will be built up with the co-operation of the Dominions, and we shall feel that the work of looking after the graves will have been thoroughly done.

Sir N. MOORE: I understand that there are three Commissioners, two representative of this country and one
who represents Canada at the present time. I would like an assurance that as time goes on that proportion will be maintained, and that in the event of one Commissioner dropping out the Government will see that the Dominion Commissioner is retained.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the intention. The Trustees are General Sir Herbert Lawrence, who represents what I may call the British part of the Joint Authority, Mr. Peacock, who was a director of the Bank of England and is a director of Baring Brothers, and who is a Canadian by birth and represents the Dominion side, and Major-General Sir Fabian Ware, whose wonderful work on the Commission is well known. He is the liaison officer, the link between the Commission and the Trustees. It is intended that the Dominions shall always be represented by someone among the Trustees. If Mr. Peacock, who is now the representative, should fall out, the Dominions will be asked to make another appointment.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I should not like this Vote to pass without expressing, as I have done on a previous occasion, my appreciation, as one who is deeply interested in the maintenance of these graveyards and who has made a personal inspection year after year in order to satisfy himself that they are being maintained, of the work that is being done. No work arising out of the War demands the sympathy and interest and the warm appreciation of every Member of this Committee more than the work of the War Graves Commission. The extraordinary orderliness and beauty of the cemeteries, the way in which they are constantly being added to, shows at once the marvellous way in which these cemeteries are being maintained. No effort is spared by the botanical section in the cultivation of suitable plants and no effort is spared to ascertain what trees and plants will grow in a particular district. I have seen what to me seems to be a most stupendous work, work which is against the forces of nature herself, at the great cemetery at Etaples, where the sand blows in periodically and makes vegetation almost impossible. There they have made such advances in ascertaining what vegetation and trees will grow that they have succeeded, and before many years
are over we shall find an oasis there due entirely to the industry and perseverance of the staff whose efforts are beyond praise.

Mr. DUNCAN: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that a Commission is being set up to deal with war graves due to the great War, but I am sure he, and also the Secretary of State for War, knows that there are other graves in existence as the result of previous wars. The only thing that moves me to speak on this Vote is that a short while ago I visited Gibraltar, and I saw there a cemetery that seemed to be a perfect gem in its way. Many men who were killed in the battle of Trafalgar are buried in the cemetery at Gibraltar, and I should like to know whether it is possible that some oversight should be given to a little cemetery like this—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is now getting beyond the scope of this Vote. These other cemeteries do not come under this Estimate.

Mr. DUNCAN: The only point is, that now we are going to create a fund of some millions in amount, I should like to see this job well done, and I do not think anyone in this country would begrudge the small amount it would be necessary to spend in keeping in order such an historic cemetery as that at Gibraltar. I felt when I looked at it that it was one of the most sacred pieces of ground in the world and in the history of this country. That is the only thing that moves me to rise now. I think a little attention might be devoted by the centre of the Empire to these small places which occupy such a big part in the history of this country.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I only rise for one purpose, and that is to ask whether any charge at all is made in connection with these war graves upon the dependants of people who have been gathered into these spots? I ask this question for this reason. A letter was sent to me the other day by a dependant of one who has been buried in one of these war graves. Unfortunately, I have mislaid the letter, but I remember quite clearly its purport. It was to this effect, that this particular dependant had been asked to make a payment of a certain sum in respect of the clearing and keeping in repair of a particular grave. I replied
to this effect, that I was quite sure such a charge was never made and was never authorised. I should be glad, indeed, to have that statement endorsed in this Committee to-night.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member's reply was perfectly correct. No charge whatever is made.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, to provide for guarantees in respect of Exports of Goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee if I explained at once the reason for this Supplementary Estimate. The Export Credits Department guarantees the payment of bills of exchange drawn by British firms on foreign buyers of British goods. From time to time bills of exchange when they become due are not met, and then the Government guarantee comes into operation; the Government has to implement the guarantee by finding the money. Afterwards, the Government recovers as much as it can, in some cases all the money it has put down. The bill of exchange is often met some time later than its due date. We try to estimate very closely, but in the case of bills of exchange, which fall due from day to day, no one knows when any particular bill of exchange will or will not be met, and it is impossible for us to give any accurate estimate in the beginning of the year of how much we shall have to find in cash and how much we may recover by way of salvage. In the beginning of the year we only put down the amounts we were certain of. In the original Estimate hon. Members will find that the Department reported that it would require in respect of guarantees a sum of £50,000, but that we should receive back about £40,000 as the result of postponed payments, salvage, or recoveries.
In the meantime other guarantees had to be made good, increasing the total to
the amount of £103,000 in all; that is the amount we were thinking we should require up to the end of March, 1926. In the meantime, instead of the Department being able to get back and set off against this £103,000 a sum of £40,000, it has been able to salve a much larger sum, namely, £75,000, and instead of asking the Committee for the whole of the £53,000 I have to report that we have received £35,000 more than I thought we should receive, and that at the present moment we have £35,000 towards the £53,000, so the additional sum required is as shown, only £18,000. In order, however, to proceed within the limits of the law I have to come to the Committee and ask their permission to pay out £18,000 as shown on balance; I cannot take that £18,000 out unless I get the permission of the Committee. Although I am asking for £18,000 as a Supplementary Estimate, we have no reason to doubt that part will be afterwards recovered; but not before 31st March, 1926. Therefore, until I recover whatever I can by way of salvage I am bound to ask the Committee to allow the Department to carry on the payments as we show in the Estimate.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The statement which the hon. Member has just made with regard to the book-keeping of the transaction is perfectly clear, but after his statement in the Debate last week and the answer he gave in the House on the question of trade with Russia it is only natural we should require some additional information as to the way in which the export credits scheme is being worked. It is very interesting to find from an Estimate like this that the Department of Overseas Trade has definitely provided for implementing the sum which it has guaranteed for goods produced or partly produced in this country, but when the Secretary to the Department asks the Committee to vote the sum required he tells us that certain of the guarantees have to be met because there has been default in regard to certain bills of exchange. Having regard to his statement and his reply in reference to trade with Russia, I think he should tell the Committee exactly in what countries such default has occurred.
One of the points we have been putting forward is this: that there is every ground to suppose from the actual experience of many people engaged in trade that if this
Export Credits Scheme were extended to cover transactions with Russia every obligation entered into by Russia in this respect would be met. When the Secretary argues, as he did last week, that Russia has on trade balance a large credit in this country which ought to be used, I think he should also tell us whether there has been a similar trade balance available in this country to the credit of other nations with whom we have transactions which have been covered by the Export Credits Scheme. If he cannot show us that, then his argument with regard to trade with Russia falls completely to the ground.
From his reply to me the other day, he seemed to be without knowledge of this fact, and so for his information I will tell him, that there are a large number of business transactions taking place to-day directly between British producers and Russian traders through the Soviet licence institutions and other means, and many of these transactions have now covered the whole period for which the bills were drawn by the Russians. Up to the moment not a single bill has failed to be met on the day when it was due. That is very good ground for our asking that we should have an extension of the Export Credits Scheme to Russia, The Russians have proved to us their bona fides in regard at any rate to present trading transactions between this country and them.
We ought also, to ask, although the Minister seemed to think that it was out of order, what is the total amount which has been guaranteed under the Export Credits Scheme up to the present? Next, what is the total amount which is in default? I gathered that the sum for which he is asking is what his Department estimates will be required by the end of the financial year. They think they will salve a good deal of the outstanding commitments. What is the total of the outstanding commitments?
There is one other point of considerable interest. Our experience in connection with export credits was that very large sums were guaranteed, and guaranteed in respect of propositions put to the Export Credits Committee, and then not taken up. How many applications for credits this year have been approved, and then for some reason have not been taken up? We ought to have this information before we proceed further.

Mr. SAMUEL: It would perhaps be better if I replied to each of these questions now. I was on the Export Credits Committee for several years, and I am acquainted with the working of the scheme. Speaking from memory, a sum not less than £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 of credits had been brought before the Committee for sanction, and about £29,000,000 was approved by the Committee, whereupon those concerned proceeded to try to get orders, for they knew that they could get their orders financed. But eventually exporters only made use of about £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 of these sanctioned credits. They have finally come to the Committee and taken up orders to the extent of only about £6,000,000, speaking from memory. Certainly another £1,000,000 has been sanctioned. Upon it transactions have not yet been carried through, but I think they will be carried through. Therefore, you may say that there is from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 worth of business—certainly over £6,000,000 and probably nearly £8,000,000 will be the result. When our exporters find they can get financed through the Export Credits Scheme, the banks and other firms are induced to look more favourably upon a proposition, and they say "Well, if these very careful people who compose the Advisory Committee under the Export Credits Scheme will give this advantage to these exporters, we ourselves are encouraged to do it in a way that we would otherwise not do."
About £6,000,000 has been used for export credits, and about £1,000,000 more is sanctioned and can be taken up. That is my reply. The hon. Member asked me also what is the amount outstanding on the guarantees. I assume he means bills of exchange which have been guaranteed by the Government and have not been met when due and are still unmet. I think that in all, up to about 31st December, the amount is £510,000. But of that £510,000 we have salved and paid into the Treasury £275,000, so that the net amount still to be recovered, the amount which the Government will be called upon to implement, is £225,000, and that is in course of recovery. We shall recover some of it. That is solely in respect of guarantees under bills of exchange.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much has actually been written off as irrecoverable?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: When are those bills due?

Mr. SAMUEL: The amount that is already written off as irrecoverable on guarantees is the small amount of £20,000 or £30,000. I did not want to disclose it because more losses will take place. We have received in the way of commissions or premiums, for business that we have done, a sum of over £100,000, which is in the Treasury's possession. We thus have a reserve fund. The bills fall due from day to day and from week to week. It is a running account.

Sir F. WISE: They are not long dated?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by long dated.

Sir F. WISE: Two or three years.

Mr. SAMUEL: Some must be, otherwise the scheme would not have come into operation. One of the chief reasons why the scheme was called for was that other people would not take these long dated and consequently risky bills. The consequence is that, in order to stimulate industry, we have to take these risky bills, some running over long periods. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not be angry with me. There are bound to be losses under the scheme, otherwise the scheme would never have come to be needed. The point with regard to Russian credits I hope the hon. Member will not ask me to go into again, for we went into it at one or two o'clock in the morning on Tuesday last. None of these bills of exchange upon which we have had to implement the Government guarantee is in respect of transactions carried out with a British firm and a foreign Government which controls the private trade of its subjects. Any operation with Russia would have to be carried out with the agents of that Government. The Russian Government does not allow private trading. I am not going to discuss that point, nor do I wish to be controversial.

Mr. ALEXANDER: A great deal of trade is being done directly with the Russian co-operative organisation, not in
any way agents of the Russian Government, but an ordinary economic and industrial organisation.

Mr. SAMUEL: I have my own strong views about the question, and if I went into the subject I would only cross the t's and dot the i's of what I said on Tuesday morning. I hope the hon. Member will not press me for the names of those for whom we have had to take up overdue bills, because I might injure the credit of our own people. I am perfectly willing to tell any hon. Member in confidence what the names are, but I do not want to make public any information that might do injury. The two principal losses which are dealt with, and of which we expect to get back a considerable amount, are, one a firm in a Far Eastern country, and another a firm in the colony of a European nation.

Sir R. HAMILTON: With regard to the figure of £220,000, which the hon. Member said was in course of recovery, I understand that that represents overdue bills? What rate of interest is charged when bills are overdue?

Mr. SAMUEL: The approximate amount of money guaranteed in bills at work at present is £2,100,000. The amount of money that is due to the Government in respect of guarantees that they have implemented is £220,000, in respect to the whole £6,000,000 ever guaranteed. Some of that will be recoverable. The hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension as to a rate of interest on the bill itself. The Government do not charge interest. For a premium or fee, which is fixed by the Committee, the Committee advises the Treasury to put the Government's name on the back of a bill. The exporter of machinery, or whatever it may be, takes that bill and "melts" it in the City, and uses the proceeds for the purpose of paying the wages of his men. The mere fact of the Government having put its name on the back of the bill makes that good paper. The Government does not fix the rate of interest charged for discount in the market. That has nothing to do with the Government or the Advisory Committee. That is fixed by the ordinary rate ruling in the City at the time the bill is discounted.

Mr. THURTLE: May we have some information as to the defaulting countries
in connection with these losses, and the nature of the trade involved? Altogether there is a total of £53,000. Presumably, the bills in connection with this £53,000 have not ben met on the due date. What is the nature of the business transaction? What is the kind of material which was exported and in respect of which the bills have been drawn? What were the countries to which the goods were exported?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present at the time, but that question has already been answered.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statement made by the Minister shows that altogether the amount of money advanced under this scheme comes to something like £6,000,000. That is a very small percentage of the total trade of this country, and I am sure that he will not exaggerate the importance of this scheme and the effect it has had on our foreign trade. I want to make some reference to directions in which the Government's activities might well be turned, and to endorse the request made in regard to trade in North and South Russia. The Minister appears to think that there is some political significance in such a request. The importance of that may be exaggerated. May I point out that at a time when the hon. Gentleman has been showing no inclination to assist that kind of trade, various agencies from Russia have been able to place large orders in this country without the assistance of his credits scheme at all. The natural sources from which they have proceeded and in connection with which all their money operations have been conducted, have not been the schemes of his Department but the ordinary joint stock banks. The joint stock banks are quite capable of looking after their own interests. They do so with great skill and with great advantage to the credit and financial organisation of London. The hon. Gentleman has had to acknowledge considerable losses on bad debts, but what is good enough for the joint stock banks is not good enough for him. That is the direct opposite of the principle on which his Department ought to proceed. If there be any justification at all for his Department, it should be that they are more adventurous than the ordinary banking
organisations; if they are to be less adventurous, he might as well wind it up, because the facilities can be as well provided elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is very enterprising, and is anxious to use national credit with the object of regaining markets which we have lost or opening up new markets. I ask him not to allow political prejudices to stand in the way of sound British business.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I rise to support the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman). The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department knows the effect which this embargo on export trade with Russia is having upon the herring industry. That industry is dying by inches, and I beg the hon. Gentleman to press on the Government that they ought not to allow a purely political consideration to influence them in this matter. Let them judge any scheme which may be put forward by the herring fishing industry for an export credit entirely on its economic side. Purely political considerations have nothing to do with the economic side of the question, and ought not to influence members of the Government one way or the other.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: As a member of the Advisory Committee which deals with these matters, I should like to say, in reply to the two last speeches, that I do not think any proposals made by firms desirous of exporting to Russia would be treated differently from any other proposals. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) are under a misapprehension. I do not remember at any of the meetings of the Advisory Committee which I have attended any proposal coming forward regarding exports to Russia, but I am quite sure that, if such proposals were brought forward, they would receive consideration quite as openly and as fairly as the proposals of any other exporters in regard to any other part of the world.
I have never heard of any rule that the question of exports to Russia was barred. If applications come forward, I am sure they will be considered on their merits. The great thing for the Advisory Committee is to see that the proposals are likely to produce work in this country. That is the idea with which the scheme was started. The scheme is intended to
give facilities in quarters where such facilities are not likely to be given by the ordinary banking concerns, to promote the export of goods from this country, and I shall be surprised if either of the last two speakers can give a specific case of a proposal by a British firm desirous of exporting to Russia being refused, simply on the ground that Russia was the country concerned. In every case the consideration has been given to the responsibility of the British firm and the likelihood of the British firm carrying out its part of the work on lines which the House of Commons has laid down, and the probability of employment being made available. These two things alone are considered when applications are made to the Advisory Committee.

Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: I cannot help thinking that the speech which we have just heard is of far graver and wider importance than some hon. Members may appreciate. If I understood the hon. Member aright, he spoke with all the authority of the Advisory Committee to whom these applications are made.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I spoke as a member of it.

Sir P. HASTINGS: I do not mean to say the hon. Member spoke with the direct authority of the Committee, but it was with a knowledge of what happened at the Committee. I understood the hon. Member to say, in substance—in the presence, and I hope in the hearing of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department—that any person who desired to enter into trade with individuals or companies in Russia, would be treated by the Advisory Committee in precisely the same way as a trader desiring to trade with any other country. I think we are bound to ask the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Government in this matter, whether, if such a state of circumstances were to arise, namely, that a trader desirous of trading with an individual or company in Russia demanded and required the assistance of the exports credits scheme, he would tell the Advisory Committee that he would give the same facilities in that case as in the case of trade with any other country. This is not intended to be, and I am sure it ought not to be, a political matter. This is a matter of
economics or nothing. The country does not enter into these guarantees in support of any political view, but in order to increase trade. The observations of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), speaking for the Advisory Committee, will lead people all over the country to believe that if they desire to-morrow to trade with Russia they are entitled to go to the Committee and to expect to be treated in the same way as if they were proposing to trade with any other country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will in the simplest terms, "Yes" or No," tell us whether that statement is right or wrong.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will explain it in the very simplest terms. If a case were to come to me from the Export Credits Advisory Committee asking me to authorise the use of public money for the purpose of giving credit facilities to Russia under the scheme, I should have to decline to accede to it. But none has ever come to me.

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do not wish to put an unfair interpretation on the statement of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) in regard to the work of the Advisory Committee, but I think he has made a mistake in stating his view of the policy of the Committee in these cases, because the point is that nothing ever comes before the Committee in connection with such cases. Is it not the case that the Minister himself—and I put it to the hon. Gentleman—vetoes any such applications before they reach the Committee? This is a point which I raised only a few days ago, and speaking as a member of the Advisory Committee, I, like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, have never known of such a case being raised at the Committee. Is not the reason however that the Government never allow any applications to come to the Advisory Committee? As far as I know, the Advisory Committee have never expressed any opinion on this matter. The Minister says he will take a certain course if a case comes to him from the Committee, but how can a case come from the Committee when such a scheme would never come before the Advisory Committee at all in the first place but would be vetoed by the hon. Gentleman himself?

Sir GERALD HOHLER: On a point of Order. I understood we were dealing with a Vote to cover particular cases in regard to which promises had been made, and I submit that in going outside that matter, the hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. ALEXANDER: On the point of Order. If we are asked to vote money in order to implement certain Government guarantees in regard to which default has taken place, we are entitled to know where the default has taken place. We have not been given that information, nor have we been told why similar guarantees are not given in connection with another country.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I have been watching the discussion very carefully so far, and I think up to this present point it is in order.

Mr. GILLETT: It seems to me unsatisfactory that we have not had a clear statement from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Deparment as to whether a veto is placed on these schemes going before the Advisory Committee. I thoroughly disapprove of what the hon. Gentleman has said and as a protest against the line followed by the hon. Gentleman in refusing to tell us definitely whether he vetoes these schemes going to the Committee I move the reduction. We should be told whether that is not the explanation why the hon. Member for Spelthorne thinks that no such cases have ever come before the Committee. The hon. Member has never known of such cases to come up, but he may have overlooked the fact that they are prevented by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department from coming to the Committee.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The point which was put to us by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) who has done such excellent service on this committee is interesting, but the reason why he was able to make the statement which he made just now, is that the Minister has been warning manufacturers off the Russian trade altogether, and no one was likely to go and make a full disclosure of his business transactions to the Committee when he knew the Minister would turn down his proposal. The expression of opinion which came just now from the Secretary to the
Overseas Trade Department is exactly what we should have expected from him after former Debates. It amounts to this. The scheme is being worked in order to give employment to people in this country—to people engaged in the textile trade, the engineering trade and other work. The only justification for it, is that it will give employment, but if it so happens that proposals should come from Russia, they are warned off beforehand. Unemployment must continue because of the hon. Gentleman's political feelings. That is a position which cannot be justified in the administration of a purely business department. I submit it is not the business of the hon. Member's Department to decide on the political or moral merits of Russia, but to help British trade. To tell us frankly across the Floor as the hon. Gentleman has done that he will veto any proposals coming from the Advisory Committee in connection with Russia, is a complete departure from the spirit which has animated this Department since it was founded.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I rise to ask the attention of the Minister and the Committee to what appears to be very clearly a serious point. Hon. Members will recall that these schemes and guarantees have been incorporated from time to time in Trade Facilities Acts. I should like to invite the Minister to tell the House under what line of any Statute ever passed by this Chamber he vetoes in advance any applications for credit in the case of Russian trade. I shall go beyond that and ask at the same time if there is any line in the administrative Regulations which gives him a power of that kind. I suggest that the statement which the Minister has just made is a direct violation of the Statute. In point of fact, the Minister has done something which he is not in any way entitled to do under this legislation.

Captain MACMILLAN: I have listened with considerable surprise to some of the statements elicited in the course of this Debate. I understood the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Government, to say that even if a proposal was recommended by the Committee for the granting of a credit for trading with Russia he would decline to accede to it. I ask him on, what ground. It seems to me—I speak
with all deference—that if the Committee recommends it it would obviously not be on a financial ground that the Government would refuse to accede to it, because the Committee would not recommend it if they thought that the risk was too great, or the chances of repayment too slender. Since it would not be on financial grounds, therefore it must be on political grounds. On what authority, on what principle of ordinary business can objection be taken to a grant of this kind? Although this Debate is dealing with only a small sum, it will have elicited very important statements of principle to be dealt with on this Vote, which really do deserve the earnest attention of this House and of the Government in regard to the future conduct of this scheme.

Sir P. HASTINGS: While my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Graham) was referring to the powers under which the hon. Gentleman purports to act, I looked up for myself to see if there was anything in the Act which permits him without consultation with the Advisory Committee to veto in advance—that is before consultation with the Advisory Committee—something which they might otherwise be prepared to recommend.

Mr. SAMUEL: indicated dissent.

Sir P. HASTINGS: The hon. Gentleman says he did not say it, but what I think hon. Members largely complain of is that he has not yet told us whether he does do it in advance or not. All he has told us in answer to me is that if they did recommend it he would automatically refuse to consider it. It certainly must have been to many Members a most surprising statement when we had had in the preceding two minutes a statement from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), a member of the Advisory Committee, saying that he would recommend it if it otherwise fell within the purview of the Act. I have looked at the first section of the Act of 1921. The hon. Gentleman says that I am setting up ninepins. The only ninepin at the moment is one that has not got up, himself.

Mr. SAMUEL: If a recommendation was sent to me I should feel that I was responsible to the taxpayer for whatever might be hazardous in this business. I
know that in the past Britain has lost a great deal of money owing to repudiation by Russia. There are a large number of our people who have invested money—not for warlike purposes—in the great municipalities like Kieff, Moscow, Vilna, Nikolaieff, and Saratoff, at a small rate of interest for the purpose of lighting and providing other essential social services in those places. I know too that a large number of mills, factories, and industrial undertakings have absorbed a large amount of the money invested in Russia. The Russian Government has confiscated the whole of that property and the people of this country who put that money into those undertakings—not warlike undertakings—have lost it. I then have to consider this, having lost our money once, shall we lose it again. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, the basis of all commercial undertakings is the sanctity of contract. Russia herself has ruined her credit by repudiation and confiscation. She has only herself to blame. If we have lost our money once I have to think before I allow any public money to be risked again in Russia. What hon. Member will say to me that the British public having lost money through the default of that country once, I am to risk losing it again?

Mr. HARDIE: How much did you lose of the taxpayers' money on Koltchak's army?

Mr. SAMUEL: The best answer I can give to my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir P. Hastings) is this. We know for a fact the amount of credit balance which the Russian Government had here as the result of the last two years of trading was £15,000,000. This is not political but simple economics which I will ask the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) to take a note of. In 1924 and 1925 Russia exported to Britain, in the one case nearly £9,000,000 more than she took from us, in the other case £5,000,000 more. That is to say, she has a credit balance here of £6,000,000. I do not see, and I am sure the Members on this side will agree with me, why my Department should risk public money even with persons that have the finest credit, let alone with a Government that has repudiated and that still does not recognise private property while that Government has ample credits here to pay us with. If it has defaulted once it may
do it again. I do not see why I should be party to risking further British money if the Russian Government, that says it wishes to buy goods here, does not use its £15,000,000 of cash balance. The right hon. Member for Swansea shakes his head. Let him go and tell that to a directors' meeting of his own bank. Let him go into the City and preach, as he preached a moment ago, that we should finance a Government that has by repudiation shaken our faith in its credit, and let him advise his bank shareholders and depositors to lend their money again. Let them take note of such views. I am sure that they will think twice before they regard his view as sound banking from a bank director.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Let me say at once that five of the largest Joint Stock Banks are now carrying on extensive operations over Russian contracts and that the last orders placed in this country for engineering and railway material were financed entirely by Joint Stock banks.

Mr. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman stands answered out of his own speech. The Russian Government is using its credit balances for these purchases. Here is £15,000,000 of money that will buy everything Russia wants, from agricultural goods to fish. Why should I, both as Parliamentary Secretary and as a business man not say to myself "If they have these millions here, let them use them first to buy and pay for goods of British manufacture before they ask people who they ask to sell goods to them to come to the Export Credits Advisory Committee." That is the whole answer. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite tells me that Russia needs exports credits, after she has used her £15,000,000 to buy goods, that will put a different complexion on the case, but, until she has used up her credits here, I am entitled to say to our exporters, "Ask the persons who want to buy goods from you to use their balance credit before they ask you to come here to us."

Sir P. HASTINGS: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the long and clear answer he has made to many questions except the one I ask. I can put it in two lines. Is it true that the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Govern-
ment, puts a veto upon these applications even going to the Advisory Committee at all?

Mr. SAMUEL: indicated assent.

Sir P. HASTINGS: I gather that He says "No, he does not."

Mr. SAMUEL: I do veto them. The Regulations exclude them.

Sir P. HASTINGS: The answer then is that if an application comes from the Committee he would immediately refuse it. I asked him if I was right in relying on the first Section of the Act of 1921 for his only power in the matter. I have read it, and I see what are the only things that he is to take into his consideration, the only persons with whom, and the time when he is to take them into consideration.
If the Treasury, after consultation with an advisory committee,"—
that is with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) sitting there, who has said that he would make such recommendation in precisely the same way as if it came from any other country—
are satisfied "—
and this means that he must be satisfied—
that the proceeds of any loan are to be applied towards or in connection with the carrying out of any capital undertaking "—
a thing that clearly it could foe easy to satisfy him about
or in the purchase of articles other than munitions of war and that the application of the loan in the manner proposed is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom.
Those are the only things he is to be satisfied of, and my hon. Friend has told the Committee that he and his Committee would recommend the loan if it satisfied those requirements.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I did not say that. I simply said that we have never had a case brought before us, but, so far as I was concerned, I saw no reason why, if a case was brought before us, we should not go into it.

Sir P. HASTINGS: That is exactly what I am going into. We do not see any reason at all. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain MacMillan) who spoke a moment ago sees any reason. The right hon. Member
for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) does not see any reason. Nobody seems to see any reason—

Mr. SAMUEL: I do. One paramount reason which the right hon. Gentleman has not read out. The Committee has to consider one other thing, for which I am responsible—whether there is a probability or possibility of loss.

Sir P. HASTINGS: Surely, my hon. Friend cannot seriously consider that any body would overlook that. We have heard within the last five minutes that the joint stock banks are prepared to take the risk. [Interruption.] It is idle to say that if the bankers will do it, there is no reason for provision under this Act, because the whole purpose of this Act is to finance schemes which are too speculative for the joint stock banks to undertake. The reason given by my hon. Friend is that his chance of getting his money back is too remote. Can he seriously say that, after just having heard that the joint stock
banks—

Mr. SAMUEL: From £55,000,000 to £60,000,000 worth of accommodations have been asked for, and, quite apart from Russia, so careful are the Committee that as little money shall be lost as may be that no less than £29,000,000 have been turned down. It does not matter what country it is; Russia is not the only country; we have to consider very seriously whether or not there will be a risk of loss.

Sir P. HASTINGS: Surely my hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. He says he always has to consider the prospect of getting his money back, and very properly so, but he also says that in the case of Russia he does not consider that at all, because he vetoes it at once, and he will veto it at once, whether it comes from a good source or a bad source. He has told us—and I have accepted the position—that he would unhesitatingly refuse to accept any recommendation of the Committee if it were put forward. There is only one other thing I want to ask. I gathered not ten minutes ago, from an interjection, that the hon. Gentleman thought the only thing to consider in Russia was trade with the Russian Government. We have heard a great many hon. Members ask whether he does not know perfectly well that the
great bulk of trade to-day is with individuals in Russia, and surely, if the hon. Gentleman was unaware, it seems a little hard to decide in advance to turn down all recommendations of the Committee, which he seems to have thought must necessarily be Government recommendations, if in fact they are with private individuals, and I would ask him again if he would be equally prepared to turn down any recommendations of the Committee if they were for trade with individuals or companies in Russia and not with the Government.

Mr. ROY WILSON: As one of those Members in this House who have some practical experience of the export credits scheme, I should like to say a few words, because I think there has been some confusion of thought in regard to the exact operation of the scheme. The procedure is this that the exporter goes to a banker, through whom he usually manages his operations, and asks whether he would like to carry out a transaction with Russia. The banker does not care to do it, and recommends him to go to the Export Credits Department. He then places his scheme before the Export Credits Advisory Committee, and they weigh the merits of the scheme and decide whether or not it is a scheme which they can recommend safely to the Government to carry out. The Government then have to decide whether the risk is such as to justify them in placing their guarantee at the back of the bills, which are drawn in connection with these export credit transactions. If they decide that the risk is a good one, they intimate to the man who wants to ship the goods that his bills will be backed by the Government and the procedure then is for him to hand this credit to the banker, who usually undertakes his transactions, who sends the bills out abroad and acts for the Export Credits Department.
It seems to me that there has been some confusion of thought over this transaction, because we have heard from the Minister that the applications to the Export Credits Department have been many many millions in excess of the sums which the Department has been willing to guarantee. We have also heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who represents the Advisory Committee, that no applications, within his knowledge, have been
received by that Committee for transactions with Russia. I think there is a very strong reason why the Advisory Committee has not been troubled with these applications, because, while the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) says the joint stock banks are financing operations with Russia, I am sure it is correct that those transactions are fully secured. I know enough of them and of their great capacity for care to be quite certain that I am right in saying that they are probably secured, either by the earmarking of credit in London for these transactions, or in some other way, which renders it perfectly safe for the banks to carry out those contracts. Whether they are long or short credits makes no difference if they are properly secured, either by first-class collaterals or by gold in London, but I believe that the Government are perfectly right in the action which they take in refusing to pass these export credit schemes for Russia, even if those schemes came—and we have had no evidence this afternoon that they have come—before the Government from the Advisory Committee. Indeed, we have had evidence to the contrary, that the Advisory Committee has not received any applications, and that is not due, hon. Members should realise, to any action of the Minister in broadcasting the fact that no Russian transactions would be considered, because in fact they have been considered by the joint stock banks.
Therefore, my point is this, that the Government are perfectly right, in view of the fact that there are more demands from the Advisory Committee for these export credit facilities than the Government are able to grant, and the Minister, in my judgment, is right, in saying that, even supposing the Advisory Committee put forward a credit involving a shipment from here to Russia, with long credit, it would be turned down, because they regard it, as indeed I am quite certain I am right in saying all the bankers in this country regard it, as extremely risky business unless they are properly covered—certainly business that no overseas bank would undertake without valid and ample security. The Government are perfectly justified in saying quite plainly in the House to-day, as they have said through their Minister, that they would veto these transactions if they came from the Committee, first, on the ground of inadequate
security, and, secondly, on the ground that there are more applications for these credit facilities for countries that really are sound financially than the Government can meet at the present time.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: I cannot help feeling that there are more than the Members of the Opposition in this House who are alarmed at so dogmatic a statement as that which was made by the hon. Gentleman representing the Overseas Trade Department, who proceeded, as did the last speaker, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson), to apply reasons for a decision in regard to any application for an export credit to Russia. If the Committee could be assured that in the case of individual applications that kind of treatment was applied, there would, I think, be no objection whatever to the hon. Gentleman's statement, but it is just because he says categorically that no applications of that sort could be entertained at all that some of us on this side feel a little apprehensive. After all, the whole strength and logicality of our attitude towards Russia lies in the fact that we deal with it empirically. We say that these credits would not fructify, that we should be doing wrong in extending these credits to Russia, but we do not assume a doctrinaire attitude towards them. Russia does not obsess us in the same way as it is a King Charles' head to hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Lichfield has pointed out a great many reasons why we might apprehend that we should lose our money in dealing with Russia, but nothing could be more disastrous than that we, who are the party of expediency, should apply beforehand to the consideration of this question, a positive veto of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I hope that that will not be the attitude of this party towards credits of that kind, but that each one will be considered on its merits, and that, if a case can be made out, credits for Russia shall have just the same consideration as any other credits.

Mr. J. H. HUDSON: I have always felt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, with some of his pleasant discourses, would manage to land himself into a first class political crisis, and he seems to have done so this afternoon, to such an extent that it is necessary for him to get the advice of his
right hon. colleague, the Home Secretary, which advice I should hardly feel inclined to advise the hon. Gentleman to accept, especially if he wants to get out of the economic difficulties which he has created for himself. It has become clear to us, surely, that it is possible, through the existence, so we are told by financial experts, of collateral securities, for joint stock banks to do business on good terms with Russia, but the assumption seems to be that if the Government, through their special Committee, do Russian business, Russia is quite certain to default in that business, but if Russia were to default, how could it be possible for joint stock banks to regard the securities as valuable? They have got the securities, but if it were the case that Russia defaulted on a piece of first class business, how could it be possible for Russia to continue into the future having in this country a security which would enable joint stock banks to go on doing this business?
Surely Russia knows enough, however much hon. Members opposite may dislike Russia, from her experiences with the joint stock banks to realise the necessity of keeping that collateral security, not merely now. but in the future, for transactions of the sort that have been discussed to-day, but the Government are assuming that if trade be done with Russia, if an arrangement be made by the Government or by a Committee representing the Government, Russia is bound to become a defaulter. I suggest that that idea is based, not on economics at all, but on the prejudices of the hon. Gentleman and his Government, and that what they are actually doing by their prejudices is not only damaging to Russia, but damaging to hundreds and thousands of the working folk of this country, who might be having employment if a different attitude were adopted by the Government. I hope the Government Whips will send for some other adviser than the Home Secretary to help the Parliamentary Secretary out of the hole into which he has got himself, because I am quite sure that there is no way out of that hole except a frank refusal to accept the position which the hon. Gentleman has laid down, namely, that if any recommendation does come from the Export Credits Committee, he will turn it down if that arrangement is made with the Russian nation.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Perhaps it is desirable that I should say a word or two, because a few years ago I occupied the office now filled by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, which had something to do with formulating the system under which export credits are now granted. May I say, quite roughly, how the thing works. Anybody who wants to export anything to Russia or any country is, of course, at perfect liberty to do so, and if his security is good enough, he can go to the joint stock banks, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, and he can get the necessary financial assistance to enable him to do that. The export credits scheme was established in order to help cases where the security was not sufficiently first class for the banks to take it in hand. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me, that the banks have very large sums in their hands, and if the security be good, there is no need to come, and people do not come, to the Export Credits Committee. Nearly always it is only those risks which the great bankers do not see their way to take up. Then the Export Credits Committee go into the matter, consider first of all the position of the exporters, the English firms, and then the position of the importers. In the case of joint stock banks, apart from collateral security, if the firm be good enough, they have the full backing up to 100 per cent., but in the case of the export credits scheme, in order to encourage the English export trade, we, the Government, when we have backed the bill, will not make the English exporter, if things go wrong, pay the full amount of 100 per cent., but something less, and never more than 80 per cent., and sometimes a good deal less than that.
The position is this. The Government have got to consider whether they will allow export credits, for which the taxpayer of this country is going to be liable, in the event of anything going wrong, for at least 20 per cent. of the amount, and sometimes more, with a country which does not admit the right of private property. The hon. Member opposite has great business experience in the co-operative movement. He knows perfectly well it is open to him to export anything he likes to Russia, and to take
his risk of getting payment, or going to law in the Russian Courts if the Russian importer does not pay. The position we have taken up here is that, in the present condition of Russia, with the very grave difficulties there would be, and there are, of suing a Russian importer who had defaulted in his payments, we are not prepared to risk the British taxpayers' money in the way that business people are perfectly entitled to risk theirs.

Mr. BROMLEY: You spent £20,000,000 in destroying their railways and bridges.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That was not done under the export credits. If anything of this kind were proposed to be done under the Export Credits scheme, hon. Members opposite would, of course, be the first persons to object to it. Do not let us consider the political, but the economic point of view—whether it is desirable that Government money, for which we are responsible to the taxpayers, should be risked in financial transactions with a country which, I am bound to say, we do not regard as equally desirable from a commercial, from an economic, and from a legal point of view as France or any other of the great countries of the world. That is the position.

Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the scheme was first passing through the House, gave a definite pledge, in order to get it through the House, that Russia would be included within the ambit of the scheme?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite right in regard to the facts. I think that relates to trade facilities. We are now dealing with export credits, which are quite a different thing. But I would say quite frankly that if the position of affairs in Russia, if their economic system were altered— [HON. MEMBERS: "They will never do that!"] If hon. Members opposite do not want to hear what I have got to say, perhaps my hon. Friends on this side would like to hear. If the Government are convinced, by an alteration of the economic system, by an alteration of the legal system, by the possibility that trade can be conducted with Russia without risks, which they are not entitled to take, then I, for one, should be perfectly willing as a member of the
Government to see the export facilities utilised for the purpose of trade with Russia, but, in the present case, I think my hon. Friend is perfectly justified in the action he has taken, and I, also, would not be prepared to risk the taxpayers' money in trading with Russia at the present moment.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are always very pleased to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, who is very courteous and urbane. Would he kindly answer the question, which has not yet been answered, under what line or what Clause of the Export Credit Section of the Trade Facilities Act do the Government refuse either to sanction something recommended by the Committee or, on the other hand, to issue an edict in advance to prevent its application? Under what authority is that done?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am perfectly prepared to justify our action on the ground that the Act is an enabling Act to enable us to give credit, and we are bound to exercise our rights as sensible men. If we believe, as we do, that it is not, at the present time, good business to give export credits to Russia, then I say we are bound not to advance money in that way.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says that the Government will not assist traders under the export credits scheme to trade with Russia until that country has altered its economic system. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that by the time that comes about the possibility of all trade will have disappeared. It will have been captured by our rivals, who are not so supersensitive as to trading with this nation, and I submit that manufacturers in the north of England and their employes ought not to be told by the Government that they are to do without these facilities whilst their competitors abroad are engaging in extensive trading operations with Russia. It seems an extraordinary thing that if the Advisory Committee are satisfied on financial grounds that any scheme put forward is sound, it should be turned down on political grounds. I submit that the needs of employment are so great that we cannot afford to indulge in these political prejudices. We have been told by an hon. Member below the Gangway
that the Government can exhaust all the credit they have in making grants to people trading with other nations, but surely they have not done this, and so long as they have not exhausted these credits, I submit they should not turn down these applications, which may come to manufacturers for rails, bridges, or constructional work, which is necessary for Russia.

Major STANLEY: The Committee must surely be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's parental care that his child should not be thrown into unnecessary danger, but, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman only reiterated what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade said in answer to a question by my hon. Friend that he is not actuated in any way by political motives, but purely by economic motives. He argued at some length—and I am not prepared to deal with the merits—that economically these credits were unsound. As far as I can make out, the argument fell into two lines. One was that Russia had so little money that the credit was unsafe, and the other was that she had so much that it was unnecessary. But he did not answer a question which must arise from that, and which is, that if the Department are deciding this matter purely on economic grounds, on arguments and on facts which are within the knowledge of the Committee set up to advise them, if they are to decide entirely on their merits, what then is the function of this Committee? Do the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department think that by taking these matters out of the hands of this Committee, and deciding them for themselves, they are fulfilling the intention of the Act, which set up this Committee to advise them on precisely those economic points on which they themselves are now taking the decision?

Mr. MAXTON: I think that this has been, perhaps, one of the most unexpected Debates that have taken place on these Supplementary Estimates. The very gallant rush which the Home Secretary made to the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is typical of the gallantry—and, perhaps, the rash gallantry—of the
Home Secretary, but I am not quite sure whether the statements of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will be so fully appreciated by their colleagues in the Government when they come to be examined to-morrow in the light of cold day in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It was very courageous and bold of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to say, "Never, never!" It is all very well for dramatic statements of that sort to be made, but it is just as well that statesmanship, in a matter of this sort, should have a few qualifications.
I do not know how right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to get out of that to-morrow, but the matter, it seems to me, should take on a much more serious aspect. Some hon. Member referred to the subject as being regarded on these benches as a sort of a King Charles' head. Personally, I am not in the least interested in what will be the effect of granting £10,000 or £20,000 credit to Russia. Just as Russia has got through its military troubles on its own, when there has been plenty of opposition from hon. Members opposite; just as Russia got through its social and political difficulties; so it will work through its economic difficulties. It has got its social system based on a far more just ground than we have here. For the last four or five years she has made far away more progress than has been made in this country. I do not think that this country has anything to teach Russia. Therefore I am not interested in what the effect of granting, or refusing, export credits is going to have on the internal affairs of Russia. What I am interested in is this: that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, now jointed by the Home Secretary, tell us that, in order to exercise their spite against the Russian people, they are prepared to keep the fishing people in the north-east and west coast of Scotland in a state of semi-starvation.
Any single Member of this House who, at any time, has been in one of these fishing villages, knows the dead hand which has been laid upon them since the Russian market was practically closed up. The question of whether certain Russian firms have defaulted does not enter into it at all. The world is packed out with examples of nations which have defaulted.
In Britain we have had thousands of commercial defaulters. The law of the land is based on making special arrangements to allow capitalist defaulters to get away. But these arrangements and those things do not matter a bit. Here you have a body of the best type of men that we have in Great Britain. You boosted them up in the work they were doing during the War in patrolling the seas in their trawlers, and when they were taking risks. Now you absolutely refuse to give this little bit of facility that would save the industry of the towns and villages. Mark you, these towns are solely dependent on the fishing industry, and on nothing else. On the fishing industry depends whether the shopkeepers are going to be busy or not. It is the fishermen who decide whether trade is or is not to be busy.
The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department knows something about the fishing industry, and he knows what I say is so. There are towns dotted all around the coast of Scotland occupied by heroes, men you praised up during the War; now these fishermen either do not put to sea at all, or, if they put to sea and bring their fish home, it is to an uneconomic market, because this one great big market has been closed down for years. I want hon. Members to agree, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to agree that the exports credits scheme and the trade facilities scheme was brought forward not to help foreign countries, but to help our own people. If there was freely given to private exporters just that little bit of support which was necessary to turn the transaction from being not an absolutely sound one into an absolutely sound one, that is what is required. Nobody here expects Government support for wild-cat schemes. Nobody wants that. On the other hand, we do not want you to put Government credit behind schemes that are absolutely sound and solid on their own foundation. We want you to put it behind those schemes that are fairly good and fairly solid; to give just that one little bit of national support that will carry them into the region of safety for the persons concerned. I put it to the Government that the expenditure of a few hundred thousand pounds would stimulate the whole of the East Coast and the Highlands of Scotland, and bring hope into
many homes which have been under a cloud of despair for several years.

Mr. PENNY: I should just like a word or two in view of the many criticisms made in regard to our dealing with Russia. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite if he can tell us whether, when the Socialist party were in power, they did not alter their policy because they had as a financial adviser a man who knows more about prudent trading than any hon. Member in this House? If the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it wise and prudent to trade with Russia, then why was not their policy altered?

Sir JOHN SIMON: I am greatly interested in what has been said from the Government Bench by the Home Secretary and his colleague, because I have a very clear recollection of the Debate which took place when the Labour Government introduced to the House their scheme for trading with Russia. I think I can show the Home Secretary in a very few moments, and at the same time satisfy the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny), who has just put a question, that the action then taken by the Conservative party, in opposition, was certainly not the attitude taken by Ministers on the Government bench to-day.
I was not one of those who was greatly enamoured of the Labour party's proposed Treaty with Russia. The ground on which the Treaty was criticised from the Conservative Benches was because the Treaty proposed to put Russia in a preferential position. It proposed to give Russia the advantages of British credit, not as one of the many countries from which proper application was made, but preferentially. It was to put Russia in a superior position over other people. It is always difficult to turn up at short notice quotations of the sort, but one of my hon. Friends has turned it up for me, and I think it will give the Home Secretary reason to pause. I am referring to a speech which was made in this House on 6th August, 1924. The then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been explaining the provisions of the proposed Anglo-Soviet Treaty, and the present Minister of Labour—and, of course, he already was an ex-Minister, and had I think at one time been the head of the Overseas Trade Department—used this
language in relation to the Labour Government—he was attacking the Labour Government, not that it was wrong to grant export credits to Russia if the Export Credits Committee recommended it, but that Russia should not be given better terms than other people. He used this language:
I should like to have another piece of information, and I am ready to give way to the Under-Secretary if he will give it to us. Is there going to be any interference at all with the functions of the Committee that rules the Export Credit Department in this, or are they going to be allowed to decide the issue as to giving exports credits in the same way as hitherto to Russia as to other places? "—[[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th August, 1924; col. 3060, Vol. 176.]
We have hitherto understood that the Conservative said this: The Exports Credits Committee, staffed by skilled persons in whose skill great confidence is placed, act quite independently in considering proposals in reference to Russia as well as other people. But in applying tests to proposed cases of trading with Russia, then, as has been truly said, there are special dangers. I have not understood till now that it was the fixed principle of Conservative policy that whatever might be the judgment of the Export Credits Committee, whatever might be the special reasons which induced them to recommend a credit, that orders had gone forth that if it was Russia that was proposed no export credit should be granted, they had been damned from the start!

Mr. TEMPLETON: I am very much surprised at the attitude which the Government have taken up. I do not intend to delay the House for many moments, but I just want to say on behalf of those who are most interested that I believe in the opening up of that trade—

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Not in relation to the speaker as an individual, but might I point out, Mr. Hope, that when I addressed the House on one occasion and laid hold of the pillar in front of me, the House howled at me.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. TEMPLETON: In spite of nobody howling at me, I will take my hand off the pillar. I accept the correction of my hon. Friend opposite, but I want to put
my finger on the spot. This matter affects my constituents in the North of Scotland. I am not going to associate myself with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his grand eulogy to-night regarding Russia and its Government. The more I go among the fishing folk in the North East corner of Scotland, the more do I realise the situation. Here are a body of men, who, as has been, said to-night, have never been suppliants for financial aid from the Government, and who are not now suppliants for financial aid from the Government. They are a sure defence for the country around the coasts; and they see their market gone, largely on account of the fact that we have decided to treat Russia differently from other countries. It is perfectly true that if you lend a person money, and he does not pay, you are chary of standing bond again for him. Again, it is perfectly true that if a man has once been done in by somebody in a business transaction, he is cautious of entering into commitments with that same person again. But if the refusal to enter into commitments with these persons is going to bring injury to the members of his own family, or a section of the community which deserves a better fate, it is time, I say, that we who generally support the Government, and who believe that the same treatment should be meted out to Russia as other people, should say so. There are other countries in the world which, I think, owe us money. I have made inquiries, and so far as they go, persons concerned have made no complaint of Russians not sticking to their commercial bargains. I speak only on behalf of the fishing folk. The condition of things is hardly realised by hon. Members of this House, but the state of the herring industry is such that since 1913 only one new herring-drifter has been put into operation in the north-east of Scotland. The average life of a drifter is estimated at 25 years, and the only conclusion we can draw from that is that for lack of a market the profit of the trade is not sufficient to enable the fishermen to carry on in a progressive spirit. I would even now ask the Government to reconsider their attitude, and to say that in this small matter they will make a concession and allow Russia to enter into the benefits of this trade scheme.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It was interesting to listen to the question read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) with regard to the utterance of the present Minister of Labour upon this question on 6th August, 1924. It carried my mind back to a statement made by the hon. Gentleman who is the present Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade. If I remember rightly—I do not wish to do him an injustice, and I am quoting from memory—I think he himself said, from this side of the House, that it would be an outrageous thing for any Department to interfere with the Exports Credits Committee.

Mr. SAMUEL: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am only speaking from memory, but so far as my memory serves me I was referring then to the Committee dealing with the Trade Facilities Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the same principle."]

Mr. WALLHEAD: The point is that the hon. Gentleman claimed sacro-sanctity, for the Committee insisted that it would be ultra vires for a Minister to interfere with the recommendations of a Committee of that kind, and it is strange to find him now taking the opposite view. The Debate has revealed a depth of ignorance on the part of the Treasury Bench which is positively appalling when one thinks of the magnitude of the issues involved. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that the little bit of export credit the Committee would grant to Russia would not bring Russia through her economic problem. I agree with him that Russia will get through, and probably without any aid whatever. When it is said that we are making of Russia a sort of King Charles's head, I would reply that we are pushing this question forward because we want to use every opportunity we have for securing profitable work for our unemployed people
Both hon. Gentlemen have told us that it is not safe to trade with Russia because Russia does not regard private property as sacrosanct. Surely he must know that private property has been re-established in Russia, that the principle of private ownership of property has been established, and that there is a large amount of private enterprise there. At the moment, according to my information, at
least 35 per cent. of the total trade of Russia, internal and external, is probably done under the aegis of private enterprise. The statement, therefore, that we cannot trade with Russia because the right of private property is denied is not quite correct. As a matter of fact, it is undisputed that various firms, in various parts of the world, representing different nationalities, have concluded very profitable arrangements with the Russian Government on the basis of profit-taking by private persons. That is an established fact.
We have been told by the hon. Member representing the Minister in charge that the Russian Government have repudiated certain commitments of the old administration for which, apparently they were responsible. I hope I am not stretching a point too far when I say that it must be within the knowledge of every Member of this House that upon more than one occasion representatives of the Russian Government have declared their eagerness to discuss with the British Government terms upon which a settlement could be made of outstanding debts owing to private persons in this country. M. Rakovsky has stated it time and time again. To-day I asked a question on this very point, in view of discussions which are now going on in Paris with reference to the settlement of claims against the Russian Government by French citizens in respect of private debts—for bonds—for sums of far greater amount than concern people in this country. I think it is an undoubted fact that under the terms of the Treaty a settlement could be arrived at.
The secretary of one of the large associations of British creditors in this country knows full well that the one thing that stops a settlement in respect of these particular bonds and securities, of monies lent on municipal undertakings, even of money sunk in property which has since been nationalised, is the policy pursued by our Government. Persons in this country who have claims upon Russia for monies invested there would probably not receive pound for pound, but certainly the terms ought to be as profitable as those we recently concluded with Italy, and at least the creditors would get a substantial amount of what they claim. If the hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise the claim for trade with Russia on the ground that there has
been repudiation of certain investments in properties now nationalised, why does he not repudiate trade with other countries? Will he tell me or the House to-night that there has been no repudiation by Czechoslovakia? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) stated, with, regard to Czechoslovakia and to other countries with which he had negotiated treaties that there had been complaints—I am not using his exact words, but quoting the sense of the statement—that there had been complaints with regard to the treatment of persons who had properties in Czechoslovakia which had been nationalised. He said: "We have never been able to interfere, because that would mean an interference with the sovereign rights of the State of Czechoslovakia itself." If the sovereign rights of Czechoslovakia are to be respected, why deny sovereign rights to Russia? In effect, the United States, under the prohibition law, destroyed millions of pounds worth of British capital—£40,000,000 worth, I am told; but I have never heard a British Minister declare that there should foe no trade with America, and no trust placed in her, because she passed a Bill which absolutely destroyed at one swoop properties worth millions owned by British citizens who have not received one penny of compensation.
It comes back to this—that on the evidence it appears to us that the distinction is made for purely political preoccupations and for no others. We ought to protest that the Conservative Government have no right to allow their political preoccupations to stand in the way of doing something to assist the unemployed men and women of this country, and it is from that point of view that we press forward the claim we make to-night, and that we shall continue to press it forward. We do not think distinctions ought to be made between the States with whom we deal. We do not believe that the maintenance of animosities and antagonisms is good for this country, and we fear this antagonism may be continued until our opportunity has gone by. Other countries are not so backward. They look at Russia and recognise that there is a state of affairs that seems as though it has come to stay. It must be remembered
that the Russian Government is the senior Government in Europe at the present moment. It is the oldest Government in Europe; it has stood the longest. It does not matter about the conditions under which it has stood. It is no more dictatorial than the Government of Mussolini, and it is no more reactionary.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I think the hon. Member is rather straying from the subject of Export Credits.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was submitting that we ought not to allow political considerations to come in, because the moment we do we land ourselves in all kinds of difficulties, and the Government ought to be logical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton pointed out, this fund was established for the purpose of covering little differences in trading operations. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said it was for the purpose of supporting those undertakings which the ordinary trader cannot touch—for dealing with the little bit of speculation in the transaction. The right hon. Gentleman says we are not prepared to take the risk. But that is what the fund was established for—in order that the nation might take a risk that the individual could not afford to take.
I do not think there is a risk in this trade with Russia. Various traders in this country do not think so. They are all telling us that Russia is the best payer in Europe at the present moment. The Wholesale Co-operative Society have said so, and so has Mr. Marshall, the chairman of Becos Traders, and other traders. Big traders desire trade with Russia. Sir Allan Smith wants it, in order to help the engineers. He is putting forward the idea of trade with Russia. He says they can be trusted. Big traders claim they can be trusted. If there is a slight risk over and above what these traders see, that risk ought to be taken by the Government.

Mr. HANNON: I intervene only for a moment to put in a plea on behalf of the fishermen on the north and west coasts. I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to take the opportunity, following upon this Debate, of doing something for those gallant fellows who, during the crisis of this country in the War, did such
magnificent service for us. If the herring trade in Scotland has been so seriously injured as hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House contend, it is the duty of the Government to take steps, by modifying their policy towards Russia or otherwise, to save the fishing population of Scotland from the hardships and misery which are apparently being inflicted upon it. When I was Secretary of the Navy League I went round the coast preaching to the fishermen the importance of realising the significance of British sea-power and appealing to them to support our Navy, and when the War came we had an almost universal response. It would be a cruel thing if the House or the Government were to be witnesses of misery and destitution among the herring fishing population without undertaking some positive, constructive effort to help it.
Let me say I think we ought to modify our views slightly from the somewhat cast-iron attitude we have taken up towards Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Believe me, I do not ask for any cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am making a statement which I think will be of advantage in this Debate, and that is that I belong to groups of manufacturers in this country who have, without the assistance of banks or the Government, given very substantial credits to the Russian Government. On behalf of these poor Scottish fishermen I think this matter ought to be taken into account by the Government. I am sure that the Home Secretary, who took such an active part in originally framing this policy, never contemplated that it would inflict such direct injury upon any section of our own people. That is why I do not attach so much importance to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and I know hon. Gentlemen opposite are always ready to take advantage of debating points of that kind. My point is that we ought not to allow the fishing industry and the fishery folk in Scotland to be seriously injured in regard to the continuity of their avocation if we can help them by some little modification of the policy of the Government with regard to the Export Credits Scheme. While in full sympathy with what the Home Secretary has said, I hope he will
do everything he possibly can in order to relieve the serious distress now existing on a part of the coast of Scotland which rendered us such great service during the War.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I do not believe that this is so much a question of export credits as the establishment of more confidence between Russia and ourselves. The real fault of this proposal is the lack of confidence between the traders of this country and Russia. It has been stated in this debate that the joint stock companies are extending their credits to Russia, but I think that only applies to short-term credits, and the main difficulty is that Russia cannot now obtain the long-term credits which she used to be able to get in the past. That difficulty is due to a lack of political faith and good feeling between this country and Russia, and I think we should be ready to extend credits with Russia to three, four or five years, if necessary. I feel sure that it is the lack of political confidence which accounts for the reluctance of the banks in this country to offer credits to Russia. Russia requires long-term credits which she could safely meet by the annual earnings in Russia of the oil and timber industry, and the annual produce of her agricultural industry.
Russia depends upon long-term credits in order to pay for the goods she requires in such large quantities from this country. I think the Government should realise that there is very faint prospect of a complete recovery of our foreign trade and bringing this up to our pre-War standard unless we obtain some new markets. I do not think the extension of export credits to Russia would bring back our trade with that country up to the pre-War standard, but if the Government would remove the ban from Russia and treat her as we treat other countries, and give her a guarantee of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 under this Act, then the business people of this country will have more confidence in Russian trade, and we should do a great deal more business with that country. It ought to be firmly established that the British Government has decided to maintain peace between Russia and ourselves, and is not going to do anything by collusion with other States to break off our trade relations with Russia. That is a political situation which requires clearing up, and I think the Export Credits Act can be used as
an instrument to satisfy our own financiers that our good will towards Russia is sincere.
The Government should indicate that they do not desire to exclude Russia from trade between the nations, and a declaration of that kind, backed up by a reasonable amount of credit under this Act, would give greater confidence to our business people, and it would enable a much larger volume of trade to be done between this country and Russia. Russia offers to us the best market for manufactured goods that can be found anywhere in the world, and her economy is such and her ambition for the reconstruction of our country is so earnest that if properly handled we should be able to sell a larger quantity of goods to Russia than we are now sending to all the Dominions of our Empire. Russia is a country with a population of 130,000,000 which could very easily increase its purchasing power if those people were brought more into contact with the productive world outside. If those conditions were fulfilled Russia instead of buying a meager £50,000,000 of our goods annually would be able to purchase hundreds of millions' worth each year during the next 10 or 20 years. That is a fact which we should not lose sight of, and I hope the Government will announce their decision not to maintain any longer the ban on trade relation between Russia and this country.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I was delighted to hear the remarks made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), because I am sure the Scottish herring industry needs all the sympathy it can get in this House. We have had bad markets in past years entirely owing to the failure of the Russian herring market. At one time Russia used to account for 90 per cent. of our herring trade, and at that time it was our main market. I have received, only during the last day or two, petitions from the fishing communities in the North begging me to do what I can, and to urge other Members to do what they can, to restore the Russian market, in order that we may sell our herrings with certainty and get a good price for them in the future. I am not prepared to say that money would go for that purpose under this Export Credits scheme; I understand that there is at the present
moment a large amount of Russian credit in this country which would be available for that purpose; but what I do say is that there is absolutely no reason or justification whatever for the atmosphere and the attitude that has been adopted by the Minister on the Government Bench. It is not very long since the Anglo-Soviet Treaty was being attacked in this House. We have already had one quotation from the Debate on that occasion, and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to read another quotation or two, which are rather apposite after the remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I see, is just leaving the Chamber. Those remarks were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), who, I believe, was put up to attack the Treaty. This is what he said:
I always held the view, which I hold to-day, that, in spite of all the loathing and horror that one has for the methods which the Soviet Government of Russia took in order to construct its new system, nevertheless, you were not going to bring any advantage to the world by permanently seeking to ostracise a people; and I held the view, which I hold to-day, that the best way to create a change in that country, if you disbelieve in their methods and in their principles of Government—the best way to create the changes that you desire to see would be to enter into the amicable relations which trade gives with her people.
Amicable relations! Are these amicable relations, when the Minister says he will turn down any recommendation of the Advisory Committee suggesting trade with Russia? May I read one other quotation from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill-head:
Even when Russia was trading peaceably before the War, and when she had a much larger population than she has to-day, your trade was not very large in volume, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the mere resumption of trading relations with Russia is going to bring about any very great difference in our unemployment figures. But, when you have so much depression and unemployment as we 'have, every little helps, and, accordingly, anything that can be done to revive that market is of advantage to our people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th August, 1924; cols. 3146–7, Vol. 176.]
That is what I say now. It may be very little, but anything that can be done ought to be done, and I do beg the Minister to take back the statement that he made to-day that he will turn down any
recommendations made by the Advisory Committee suggesting trade with Russia. It is that atmosphere that we want to change. We can get a better political atmosphere and a more reasonable atmosphere. It will not damage trade, and it may help.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I only rise to say a few words on account of some of the speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee, because I think most of us consider that the action of the Government in this case is not only justified, but that, in view of the fact that they are the trustees of the taxpayers' money, they could not do otherwise than they have done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), rather endeavoured, I think, to lead the Debate away from the real point. I think the real point is that, so far as regards these new credits, the Committee are empowered, and, in fact, it is their function, to investigate any scheme that is put forward, as a trading scheme, but without relation to the other conditions which might be imposed upon that scheme. To make my position clear, let us suppose that it is a question of building a house. The Committee might consider the scheme, and decide what type of house was to be built, but the Government, or the super-authority, would say whether that house should be built upon a quicksand or upon a sound foundation. So far as the majority of the criticisim that has been levelled against the Government, both from this side and from the other side of the Committee, is concerned, it would seem to me that there is confusion between two issues. The functions of the Committee are perfectly clear, being purely and solely to consider a scheme as a scheme. I think it must be within the recollection—

Sir J. SIMON: Surely, they can consider who the importer is, what his credit is, and what is the business probability of the bargain bearing fruit?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I quite agree; they have to take that into consideration; but they have also to take into consideration the fact that in some countries the law is not what it is in this country. In those countries great
advocates are not, perhaps, so fully employed as in this country; they have a more speedy method of deciding disputes. I am quite sure that any trader would be only too pleased to trade with a country where the law ran as it does in this country, and where great barristers could be employed to put any case that might arise in which the trader thought he was not being properly treated. There is a further point which I think has also been somewhat avoided by the majority of those who have been attacking the Government, and that is that some £29,000,000 of credit has been turned down because the security has not been considered to be good enough, and not a single Member in any quarter of the Committee has answered the position put by the Minister, that the Russian Government have not utilised the credit which they themselves have in this country to the extent of some £15,000,000. Surely, if the joint stock banks do not think it worth while to use that credit, and if the Russian Government themselves do not use that credit, there is no reason why the trustees of our taxpayers should use our taxpayers' money. That has not been answered in any way.
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley that it is comparatively simple for an hon. Member to look up a Debate and find some statement to show that a certain view which was put forward supports the view he holds at the moment; but the view in question was not put forward with the authority of the Government, and, if we attached too much importance to the wild statements that are sometimes made by the Opposition when they are trying to obstruct and confuse the Government, I think we should be allowing ourselves to be led rather astray. It seems to me that the Opposition think they have got on a strong scent here, which, if they follow it, will annoy the Government; but I venture to think that cool reflection in the morning will show them that, if they were in power, their Ministry could not do otherwise than our present Government are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would ask hon. Members to take a sensible view[Interruption.] Let me finish. You can buy a £100 Russian Bond on the Stock Exchange
to-day for £5. If you think they are so good, why do you not buy them?

Sir R. HAMILTON: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, as he was looking towards me, I gather that his remarks are directed rather at me. My reference was simply to the Government refusing to recognise the advice given by their Advisory Committee. I am not asking them to go behind their Advisory Committee.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, he is not correct in saying that the Government have refused the advice of their Advisory Committee. [Interruption.'] Hon. Members are very quick—

Mr. BROMLEY: Keep on the rails!

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I am keeping on the rails. I think the position of the Advisory Committee is that they will back any scheme that is put before them as an economic scheme—a scheme in regard to the integrity of the person with whom they are dealing and his ability to close the accounts for which they wish for credits and so forth, but at the same time to superimpose other conditions which must be taken into consideration. Those other conditions are such that the law does not run as it does in the majority of civilised countries, and we have not recourse, as we have in this country, to attack him by law and recover what we can, and it is for that reason that, in spite of the fact that the scheme itself may be a perfectly sound one, these other conditions are such as to make it imperative that the authority does not allow that risk to be taken. It is quite obvious that if none of the joint stock banks will take the risk there must be other considerations which come in, and the fact remains that if you are so convinced that the Russian Government is going to honour its bond you can buy a £100 bond for £5. Why do you not buy them? In exactly the same way we can buy shares in Russian mining securities. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have nothing to buy them with."] You have your £400 a year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better address himself to me.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I apologise for being led astray by interjections. I think the Government are to be congratulated on the action they have taken, and I hope they will in no way be intimidated or consider any alteration of their policy in consequence of the attack that has been carried out on both sides of the House.

Mr. BROMLEY: Criticism has been directed from all quarters of the Committee to the Secretary for Overseas Trade for his very frank statement. I am not going to criticise the hon. Gentleman I am going to thank him for his frankness. It is quite refreshing. We on these benches have known exactly what the attitude of the Government was for some time. We have known why (stumbling blocks have been placed in the way of trade with Russia. Hon. Members have not been quite as frank as the Minister in their public statements, and it is good that we have got down to bedrock now, because it gives us an opportunity of examining the bona fides of those who object to trading with Russia. We have heard from all sides of the House a sympathetic plea for trading facilities with Russia to assist, the herring fishermen of the North of Scotland, and we all sympathise with them very much, and we know, too, that, when facilities were granted for this trade and these herring fishermen were in full blast, as it were, Russia honoured every commitment to which she put her hand. Whilst the sympathies of many hon. Members opposite are stirred when they think of whole communities being stagnated and thrown into unemployment due to this petty political prejudice against Russia and her people, they must recognise that, after all, the suffering is confined to family after family, and the same suffering occurs in other towns and cities of our country, which are starving for the very trade that may be opened with Russia.
We have heard something with regard to Lincoln and the tremendous unemployment there, where we have the most skilful workers in the manufacture of agricultural machinery. I should like to give one or two of my own experiences in Russia, where I spent a very energetic five weeks 15 months ago. I know it has been said by hon. Members, and those who think with them, that a trade union deputation can easily be fooled. We did
not know the language, we did not know our way about, and we knew nothing. We have published our report, and it is said to be untrue. I can stake my reputation, of which I am fairly proud, in saying something on the Floor of the House, where at least I cannot very well be challenged as having a wilful desire to deceive. On behalf of my trade union colleagues I can say we are not quite the duds some people would have it believed we are, and that when we go seeking information we are not possibly as easily deceived as people who would go to look in quite another direction, and for the short period we were there we did not work, as some well-to-do people might, for a few hours a day and the rest in the hotel. We worked from nine in the morning till three o'clock next morning.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has travelled some way from the subject of the Vote.

Mr. BROMLEY: I accept the justice of your ruling, Sir. I want to come to this. We realise that the unemployment in the herring fishery is caused by the great Russian trade being closed to them. For the same reason there is unemployment amongst British engineers. When we were in Baku we were in a railway refreshment room. My friends, I think, were having beer. I was having coffee. A man there accosted us, addressing us in English, or rather in American. He told us he was over there with 2,000 motor ploughs from the States and that he had remained to instruct the Russian farmers and peasants in the application and manipulation of the ploughs. He was going back—I think he said to Philadelphia—for another consignment of 4,000 motor ploughs. Our Government, from political prejudice alone, is standing in the way of a great deal of that trade being done by British engineers. We visited another place where a great electrical works was being erected, and an Englishman there, the representative of a very great British firm, took us into another part of the works and pointed out that here was a tremendously valuable and enlarged volume of electrical fittings which came from Czechoslovakia. He point out how British capital, through the Anglo-Czech bank, had financed the sending of this material to Russia. British capital had its interest, but Czech
labour was producing and supplying the material. The same British capital might have employed British engineers in sending that stuff into that works. I have the card of that gentleman as proof of his bona fides.
We found great electric works and stores containing electric fittings from Germany, and it was pointed out to us that the instructions and erection were all in German, and that if British manufacturers had supplied the materials they would most likely have been in English. We saw trade going on with Russia from America and Germany, employing the very labour that we could supply, and superior to both those countries, part of it financed by British capital through the Anglo-Czech Bank, while British skilled workmen are unemployed in this country because of the political prejudices of people who are steeped in politics and not in humanity. There is, we are confident, every possibility of tremendous trade for the skilled workmen and engineers and the steel workers in this country if we develop trade with Russia. Grief has been expressed from the Government benches respecting the tax payers' money being given to Russia. We sent £100,000,000 to assist Denikin to break up Russia, to destroy its coal mines and its railways. In this country steel works are working intermittently. In my own constituency there are steel works which work intermittently, which close down three weeks before an election and open afterwards. What is the position of the Russian railways? We travelled hundreds of miles through the Ukrane and Southern Russia, where Denikin did his devilment, and we saw bridges which had been blown up, station buildings burnt out, and splendid locomotives, 40 or 50, lying in the gutters, which had been subject to shell-fire. These railways and all this rolling stock have to be re placed, and if facilities were granted to our traders with Russia it would enable the British engineer to be employed. We saw a railway where the single-line bridges had been blown up—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this Vote is for export credits. It is credits we are considering, and not the amount of work that is necessary to be done in Russia.

Mr. BROMLEY: I wish to be exceedingly respectful to your ruling, but I do submit, with respect, that I am endeavouring to show where there is use for the credit facilities that could be granted, if it were not for the prejudice of the Government. I got up to compliment the hon. Member the Secretary for the Over seas Trade Department on his frankness in stating practically that it is nothing but political prejudice. Hon. Members opposite have spoken about the repayment of British bondholders by Russia. One hon. Member gibed at hon. Members on this side, and asked why we did not buy Russian bonds on the Stock Exchange. Speaking for myself, I reply, because I would not touch the unholy thing which gambles in the lives and souls of humanity. There are people on the Stock Exchange who bought and sold ships of food stuffs which were coming to the wives and widows of soldiers in this country during the War, and made great profit. That is why some of us will not have anything to do with these things. The hon. Member was permitted to gibe at us, and I give him the answer. When we come to the question of the repayment of the Russian debt, I ask hon. Members opposite whether all the debts said to be owing by Russia are honest debts. I would ask them to look into some of the claims made against the Russian Government, and see whether they are for the loss of trade of English mistresses of the Russian officers of the late Czar's army. I ask them carefully to scrutinize—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do nor think this has anything to do with the question before the Committee. I cannot keep calling the hon. Member's attention to the rules of Order.

Mr. BROMLEY: I am extremely sorry. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but permission was given to hon. Members opposite to say these things, and as they were granted that licence by your predecessor to some extent I thought that I might be given an opportunity of answering them. I am pleading for the people of this country who are unemployed—the trade unionists whom we represent. I represent a constituency where ships could be built and where men have been unemployed for three or four years. If facilities were given to enable Russia to trade with this country it would make work for our people who are unemployed,
in addition to the herring fishers of Scotland. I would appeal to the Government to remove this embargo and to give an opportunity for this trade with Russia. I am not so much concerned about Russia as hon. Members opposite may think. I am concerned about our own people. The attitude which has been adopted by the British Government since the Labour Government was dethroned in regard to this issue is creating the possibility of trade beng slack with this great nation of Russia in its rebuilding, and continuing our present condition of unemployment.
There are in Russia, as in this country, two shades of opinion, even under the Soviet regime. One section, and it is in the ascendancy at the moment, says, "We want to develop the tremendous potentialities of Russia. We want to make it a wealthy country, and we are prepared to let in foreign capital, under certain advantageous conditions." There is a great minority, which has been given a fillip by the action of the British Government, which says, "We have abolished capitalism in this country. We are feeding and clothing our people and giving them good homes and amusements, and they will never be happier if we clothe them in gold. Therefore, if we take 50 years to develop Russia, let us keep out all foreign capital from our land." That may be all right for the Russian people from that point of view, but it would certainly be disastrous to our country, a manufacturing nation, which depends so largely upon the exports of our craftsmen.
I trust that, after the frank statement which we have had from the other side, the Government will try to believe that some of us on these benches are sincerely and honestly anxious in this matter, and that we do not simply talk through our hats, as some of the Members opposite may think. We are sincere in wishing for a greater market for our goods and more work for our people, and if nothing but political prejudice stands in the way it ought to be blown away like mists before the morning sun.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: As a Scottish Member, I should like to say a few words on the subject of the herring fisheries. Hon. Members opposite are trying to make this matter a question of politics and not of humanity. When I was
standing for Yarmouth in 1922, I remember that we sent a deputation to see Mr. Kerensky, who had then come over from Russia with a view to opening trade. The deputation was received by him and he inquired their object. They said that in view of the famine in Russia and the starvation of the people they wished to see whether they could extend to Russia the sale of herrings. He said that had he known that they only wished to speak about herrings, he would not have received them; that Russia was short of railway material and rolling stock, and that was the subject more to his mind. The deputation proceeded to argue that as Russia was then supposed to be starving, they thought the time was opportune for re-opening trade in the sale of herrings. He said, "I am afraid you have rather misjudged the position. Those who agree with us are not starving; it is only those who do not agree with us." That may be politics, but it is not humanity.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Member quite correct in his reference to Kerensky?

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I meant M. Krassin. I am sorry I made a mistake. As I sit for a fishing constituency there is no one who is keener than I am to restore this market for our fishermen. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir Robert Hamilton) was not exactly accurate when he said that 90 per cent. of the herring catch went to Russia. I think about 80 per cent. was sold in Russia and Germany. But, after all, I think we really ought to leave this matter in the hands of the Government. Although it may be desirable to re-open negotiations it is quite impossible to guarantee this trade until the situation in Russia has improved sufficiently to warrant it. I am thoroughly in accord with opening this trade to our fishermen, but I do not see that we should hold our hands out unduly to Russia.

Mr. MACKINDER: It is very interesting to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) give reasons why there should be no trade with Russia so far as the herring industry is concerned, and yet all the time we have a standing example that trade has been done with Russia in herrings through the Export Credits
Scheme and that Russia did pay the money due to this country for herrings when it became due. The scheme having once been put into operation can very well be put into operation again. Many years ago I had the misfortune to have to earn my living on the North Sea as a fisherman. I thought it was a shame that I should only get 17s. for eight days a week; and it is eight days a week fishing on the North Sea. When we brought a catch of fish into the Humber and the market had not been sufficiently well "rigged" it used to go to the destructor to be turned into manure. I always thought it a very bad system which would not let us put good food into the hands of the people who needed it. No Government, and no Government Department or any Minister of the Government, should keep these men from getting the full value and reward for their labours. It is not playing the game as a member of the Government and it is not playing the game to these men who are risking their lives hundreds of days every year. If only for the sake of these men, I ask the Government to allow them to have a proper market for their fish. They have had it before and why should not the same thing operate again?
I am afraid the Government believe that if they once open the door even a little bit other industrialists will also want to do trade with Russia. I am a member of the Committee, and the Secretary of Overseas Trade Committee is also a member. I remember being at a meeting when an industrialist said that trade would be bad in his particular constituency unless and until we obtained trade with Russia, and we got exactly the same kind of outburst from the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, a tirade against Russia, just as we got last year. They would not pay their debts, he said. Any Member of this House knows that if the Labour Government had remained in office a debt settlement would have been made, and if hon. Members opposite really think that Russia does not intend to make some kind of settlement of her debts let me tell them that if they make inquiries in the proper quarter they will find that it is not Russia that is standing
in the way of a settlement of private debts.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: They pinched my furniture.

Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member says they have pinched his furniture. He left his furniture there for years and made no attempt to get hold of it. Recently he made an attempt and found that is had gone; and I do not wonder after all these years. You lose things in depositories in this country. Hon. Members opposite instead of trying through a microscope to find reasons why we should not trade with Russia should find out reasons why we should.
9.0 P.M.
The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) said that he was connected with industrialists who are doing business with Russia and who are going to do business with Russia. Are these people wrong in their heads? There is no industrialist in this House or in the country who is daft enough to do trade with a country that is not going to pay. I think we should extend the operation of this export credits system. There are men in this country who are unemployed and, as has already been said, any small amount of trade which will provide work for any small number of persons is worth getting. I ask the Government to recede from the hopeless position they have taken up. A Committee is being appointed to make recommendations as to whether or not grants for more facilities for export trade with Russia can be made. I think the Committee should have the opportunity of coming to a decision independently and that no Minister has a right to override the decision of any Advisory Committee set up to advise in a particular class of business. An hon. Member opposite said that he was prepared to do anything to induce the Government to change its mind. Yes, there are a lot of Members opposite who will do anything to get the Government to change its mind except vote against them. If hon. Members opposite really mean what they say on this question of trade with Russia and giving some employment to people on the unemployment list at home, they will vote against the Government and compel
them to resume trade with Russia by which they will do something to remove some of the miseries of our own people.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: As Member for the largest fishing port in the country, I should like to say a word on the question of herrings. I have every sympathy with hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, because the fishermen during the last herring season were not able to dispose of their catch. What I would point out is that no Member of this House has tried to do more for the fishing industry than the hon. Member who is Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. He thoroughly understands the whole question, and he has done all that is possible to open out markets for the fish that is landed on these shores. Let us for a moment consider the real position of the herring industry. Before the War undoubtedly there was a large quantity of herrings exported to Germany and Russia. Who financed the purchase of the herrings exported? The German buyers. They could come into our market and buy today, and they do so. Why do they not do as in pre-War times, that is, buy these herrings and export them to Russia? Because they know the probability is that they will have to give very extended credit, far longer than they can afford to give for such an article as the herring, which returns only a very small profit.
It is true that in 1924 the Russian Government, through their various agencies, bought heavy quantities of herrings here. That gave us one of the best herring seasons we had had for years. It is true also that the Russians paid for them. I am telling everyone that. They bought large quantities because they wanted to show the people of this country that the Russians might possibly be good customers in the future. There was a Treaty being talked about at the time and this was part of the business—to make large purchases. I know what I am talking about. The real reason why the Scottish herring fishers and the English herring fishers had a bad season in 1925 was that the Russian market had been overstocked in 1924. To-day there are thousands of barrels of herrings in Leningrad waiting for customers. The Russian Government over-purchased. Through lack of transport they could not distribute the herrings, and they now have them in
stock. To-day, if the people in Russia want herrings, they will be supplied with them, because there is sufficient credit in this country to purchase all the herrings that we have in stock. But what is the good of the Russian Government or its agencies buying herrings here if there is no market for them in Russia? The Minister is doing the right thing in taking up the stand he has taken. If left alone the time will come when the Russian buyers will be in the market again, but that will not be until they have exhausted the stocks which they have. To talk about improving trade by granting credit facilities is ridiculous in face of the fact that there are these stocks in Russia still unsold.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I wish to ask the Government to be good enough to make clear the position which they are creating by the extraordinary exposition of their new policy. In the first place, we should like to know what is their conception of this Export Credits scheme. Have the Government begun to believe that private enterprise in this country has failed, and are they slowly introducing State commercialism by beginning with the Export Credits system, or do they believe that private commercial enterprise in this country remains as it was and under normal conditions private merchants are trading as before, and it is only under extraordinary conditions, where normal conditions are not satisfied, that the Government are asked to intervene with the Export Credits system? If that be so, it is no use trying to point out in the case of Russia some form of abnormality, because it is on account of such abnormal conditions that the Government are called upon to put into practice the new assistance in the shape of export credits. We were openly told by the Home Secretary that the Governments have made it a practice and a principle to turn down the advice of the Advisory Committee to trade with Russia, because it is the Soviet Government that is ruling Russia. I grant that the Government are at liberty even to act wrongly and to set aside the advice of the Advisory Committee, if they are so determined; but we are entitled to know the exact reasons and purpose of that policy.
The Government cannot put forward the ordinary economic reasons, because there is not a tittle of evidence that the Soviet Government have entered into any commercial transaction where they have-ultimately failed to keep their bargain. There is abundant evidence, on the contrary, that trade with Russia is going to other channels and to other agencies which have found it perfectly satisfactory and well paid for. Such transactions, in fact, have been even better paid and more honourably fulfilled than some transactions within the Empire. I can point out to the Government instance after instance where the creditors of Indian buyers within the Empire have come to greater grief than any creditor trading with Russia. It has become a notorious fact. There is no economic reason or evidence put forward by the Government for their policy. If their policy is based on political motives the Government are entitled from political motives to overrule the decisions of the Advisory Committee. But again we are entitled to know the exact purpose of that policy.
The Home Secretary has a great horror of Russians interfering in the politics of this country. He now and again comes forward with some imaginary political incitement, carried on through some unknown and imaginary Russian agency in this country. Do the Government mean, by holding back and denying to British traders trading with Russia the facilities of the Export Credits Scheme, to incite the people of Russia to overthrow their Soviet Government in case they desire to trade with Great Britain? Is that the purpose? Is that the hypocritical aspect of life of the Home Secretary—to pretend pious horror of interference by imaginary Russian agencies in the politics of this country, and yet at the same time to establish a policy which says to the people of Russia, "If you want to trade with us under normal conditions, just go and overthrow your legitimate Soviet Government." Is that the purpose? We want to know. The Government and their followers time after time, against their convictions, against facts known to them, have tried to make the working classes of this country believe that Communism and Bolshevism are very horrible.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not the occasion for that kind of speech.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The Government have themselves enunciated the policy that it is through some other motive which they have not explained that they have established a policy of putting aside any recommendations of the Advisory Committee for trading with Russia, and I am trying to get a confession out of the Government as to what that policy is and what the motive for it is. Are the Government really afraid that if the people of Russia are put on a normal trading condition, then Communist rule and Soviet rule would be proved to be such a great success as to be a good example set to the working classes of this country? Is it because of that fear that they are interfering with Russian trade, amid trying to put it down by hook or crook? Will the Government explain what is at the back of their minds when they want to stand in the way of trade with Russia? We ought to know where we stand in that respect.

Mr. PALING: After the somewhat rash, but very emphatic, statement of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, backed up by the more considered, but equally emphatic, statement of the Home Secretary, that no facilities will be given under the Export Credits Scheme for trade with Russia, I wonder what is the position of the Advisory Committee? It appears to me that Committee is being put into a secondary position, and is being treated with a certain amount of contempt. This is a highly contentious question, which has been discussed in the House of Commons on many occasions, but some of us never learned until to-night that the Advisory Committee had never even the opportunity of discussing any possibilities of applying the Export Credits Scheme to trade with Russia. To-night we have learned, owing to a very simple confession by one of its members, that the Committee never has an opportunity of discussing these questions. If I remember aright, the hon. Member in question said that every application would be discussed on its merits, and that if a question regarding trade with Russia came before the Committee they would deal with it on its merits. That statement was followed by the emphatic statement of the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department that he would veto any such suggestion. Therefore, we may take it that the
Advisory Committee never had an opportunity of dealing with these applications. This was set up to deal with a specific question, and, apparently, it was to be free from any political bias or any attempts to hamper its decisions.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member will allow me at this stage to point out a matter which perhaps I ought to have explained earlier in the Debate. He talks about political bias, but I assure him it is not political bias. This non-acceptance of business in relation to Russia is not the only case of the kind. Acting officially, in accordance with the instructions of the House, and within the powers conferred upon this Department, the Export Credits Scheme for a long time granted no short-term export credits for India, a circumstance which hon. Members opposite seem to have forgotten. Some three or four years ago, owing to a fall in the price of goods sent to India, certain Indian firms refused to take goods which had been sent to them. I myself spoke from those benches opposite on behalf of my friends of the Manchester cotton industry, and they desired that no facilities should be given to the export of cotton goods, at short dates, to India. There was no political bias there. It was merely the ordinary prudent course which again ought to be taken by any person in my place—to carry out a policy which would not allow the British taxpayers' money to be lost. That case is on a par with the position which we take now in regard to Russia. It is a matter of not allowing the taxpayers' money to be lost in a risk which we think is unjustified. I may add that Russia is excluded in the printed published regulations and consequently applications for Russia do not come forward.

Mr. PALING: Then, I take it, that India has been excluded.

Mr. SAMUEL: For a time, certainly, and, for short-term credits, is still.

Mr. PALING: Am I to take it also that, had any application been made in regard to India at the time to which the hon Member refers, application would not have been sent to the Committee, and the Committee would not have had the opportunity of dealing with it?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think the case would have been treated exactly as the Russian case has been treated. Had I been Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department at that time I would not have permitted any short-term export credits to be given to trade with India, from the time when instructions were given that such credits were not to be conceded. I think the Committee will agree that it is an entirely parallel case.

Mr. PALING: During the time that embargo in regard to India was in operation, was any application made by anybody to be allowed to take advantage of the Export Credits scheme in order to trade with India, and, if so, was that application prevented from going to the Committee?

Mr. ROY WILSON: May I answer that question?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. PALING: I am putting the question to the Minister.

Mr. SAMUEL: I was not Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when the exclusion of India was discussed, but I took a great interest in the matter in debate. I remember insisting that credits should not be given to India in the circumstances, and I am therefore under the impression that applications were made, otherwise the point would not have needed attention in the Debate at the time.

Mr. PALING: That is not a complete answer. My point is that even if firms in this country, wishing to export to Russia, had made application, the hon. Gentleman would not have allowed them to go to the Committee. While the embargo was in existence regarding India, would the Government have said to the Committee in effect, "Because of the embargo you have nothing to do with this business," or would they have allowed the applications to go before the Committee with certain recommendations or information, and have allowed the Committee to settle the matter? I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that in those circumstances the applications would have gone to the Committee, and the Committee would have dealt with them.

Mr. SAMUEL: I was a member of the Committee, and the applications did not come before the Committee.

Mr. PALING: Were applications made?

Mr. SAMUEL: They never came to us.

Mr. PALING: I ask if any were made, and I cannot get the information. I am entitled to draw the deduction that if an application had been made at that time relating to India it would have been sent to the Committee as the body? responsible for dealing with it. That has not been the attitude of this Government with regard to trade with Russia, and, again I say, their political bias has prevented them from giving this responsible Committee even the most remote opportunity of giving any Export Credit facilities to Russian trade. The Home Secretary gave as one of his reasons or excuses for refusing these credits: "We will consider the question of Export Credits facilities for Russia when they have changed their economic system,"
What does he mean by that? Is it the fact that, because the economic system of Russia is not in line with that of this country, we are going to have nothing to do with them and, because it does not happen to be capitalism that we are not going to allow these trade facilities with Russia? Everything that has been said to-night has the appearance of showing that this kind of thing is due entirely to political bias against Russia. It is applied to nobody else. I would like to ask also whether the right hon. Gentleman could not apply the same method of reasoning to Russia as to the two countries who have defaulted, or rather the two firms in the two countries. He said that in the interest of those countries he did not want to make known the names of the firms. He did not want to injure the credit of the countries. He was anxious to keep up their names and reputations. I wish he would extend the same courtesy and the same manner to Russia. I wonder also if, in any event, from the employment point of view, the people of this country, other than those in the herring industries, as, for instance, those unemployed in Lincoln, in Gainsborough and in Scunthorpe, who make agricultural machinery and who are dependent on resumed relations and trade with Russia in order to bring back
some amount of Prosperity to those industries—

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: They are trading with Russia now.

Mr. PALING: I should like to ask whether it is a fact that a certain firm in Lincoln has been down to the right hon. Gentleman or his Department and asked to be allowed to trade with Russia under the Export Credits scheme, and whether it is not a fact that they have been refused, and that they were refused because of political bias? I should also like to ask if that particular scheme from those employers in Lincoln was allowed to go to the Committee for them to settle? I do not think it was, and these people are presumably to suffer because of the political bias of the present Government against Russia. There are thousands of people out of work who make machinery that Russia is wanting, and who are willing and anxious to enter into arrangements to supply that machinery if they can get the backing of this particular scheme.
It has been said time after time in this House that the question of unemployment was too severe and too big a question to be a party question. I also submit it is too big a question to be made the target of political bias such as has been exhibited in this House to-night. [An

HON. MEMBER: "Who by?"] By the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, backed up by the Home Secretary. If the hon. Member had listened he would have known who by The people in this country will have great reason to grumble to-morrow morning when they read that unemployment is largely due to the fact of political bias. I am pretty sure that the fishermen, for instance, in Scotland and the makers of agricultural machinery in Lincoln and Gainsborough will wonder to-morrow whether they have done the right thing in sending into power a Government which is actually keeping them unemployed because of the political bias they entertain towards Russia. This question is much too big, I submit to this House, for any bias of that description to enter into it, and if by granting facilities to Russia under this scheme it means that herring fishermen in Scotland or the makers of agricultural machinery in Lincoln or Gainsborough are going to be set to work then the representatives of the Government ought to be big enough to put political bias on one side and grant facilities and so get people employed.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £17,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 197.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[9.31 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenall, T.
Mackinder, W.


Baker, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barr, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Batey, Joseph
Groves, T.
March, S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.


Briant, Frank
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.


Bromley, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Purcell, A. A.


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Clowes, S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Sneil, Harry


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Windsor, Walter


Templeton, W. P.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wright, W.


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Welsh, J. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.



Townend, A. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Whiteley, W.



Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goff, Sir Park
Murchison, C. K.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Albery, Irving James
Grace, John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Apsley, Lord
Grant, J. A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pering, Sir William George


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bennett, A. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Preston, William


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hartington, Marguess of
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sor S. J. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bullock, Captain M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holland, Sir Arthur
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Homan, C. W. J.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R. w. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Smithers, Waldron


Cassels. J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jacob, A. E.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Cope, Major William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Waddinton, R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley, L. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Wiggins, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elveden, Viscount
Maclntyre, lan
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


England, Colonel A.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichffield)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Widsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ford, Sir P. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Withers, John James


Forrest, W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, F. B.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gee, Captain R.
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mocre-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury)



Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Mr. COVE: I should like to have an explanation from the President of the Board of Education in regard to this Supplementary Estimate. I find that £360,000 is required for grants to education authorities for higher education. That amount is not so great as it seems, and it only shows that at the beginning of the year the Minister cut the figure down far too much. In 1924–25 the sum expended was £4,989,000 odd, and he budgeted in his Estimate for this year for £4,740,000. Therefore, he saved on the Estimate of his predecessor some £249,000. Had he not cut it down, he might have required about £100,000 more. Therefore, although this might appear as though there was some progress as far as higher education is concerned, it signifies no progress at all in the expenditure on and development of higher education. With regard to the sum of £20,000, made up of £15,000 saved in grants for higher education to bodies other than local education authorities and £5,000 saved as aid to students, I would like to know what are the items that go to make up those two sums. For instance, is there any saving on national scholarships, on scholarships to secondary schools, or on scholarships to technical schools? These are things that the Committee ought to know before passing this Estimate, and I invite the Minister to explain to us more fully than appears on the Paper what these items include.

Mr. HARRIS: I entirely endorse the appeal of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) as to the need of some explanation of this Estimate. It is a very good thing to find a Minister of Education coming forward with a Supplementary Estimate, and I should be the last person to find fault when a sum has been found, in some way or other, to encourage grants for higher education, but I would like to know what is the policy concealed in this figure. The right
hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody that it is in secondary education that we are most behind other European countries, and that it is on the secondary side that there is tremendous need for further expenditure, both for buildings and staff, and on its technical side. Technical education is very much behindhand, and in certain industries of the country we are dealing with vast competition more because of lack of technical education than from other deficiency. On the Continent very large sums of money have been spent since the War on developing technical education and in making experiments in chemistry and in many other directions, and I think the Committee is entitled to know how this sum of money is being spent here. Is it being spent on staffing, on the technical side, or in one particular area?
One of the great weaknesses that has been pointed out again and again by the Board of Education in their various reports is the very small number of places provided for non-fee paying students. During the last few years the increase in the secondary schools has all been in the direction of fee-paying students. I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend opposite shake his head, but certainly the Board of Education's Report of 1923–24 was that 75 per cent. of the fee-paying students were paying over eight guineas a year. When you come to that figure, you are getting near to prohibiting children of the ordinary wage-earning classes from going to secondary schools, even though parents are prepared to make sacrifices to keep their clever children at secondary schools. I think we are entitled to know whether this money is being spent in encouraging the provision of more free places, and whether, in giving his grant, the right hon. Gentleman considers the fees charged. Where the fees are low, does he sanction expenditure, and, on the other hand, where the fees are high, does he leave it more to the local authority to find the money from other sources? We want a clear policy. The whole future of our country and of our industry depends—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That might be so, but this is not the time to discuss it.

Mr. HARRIS: I am putting very important facts before the Committee. Here we are asked for £360,000 extra, at a time when the country is in dire financial straits. We should be very careful to see whether the money to be found is going to be spent in the right direction, on the right kind of education and the right kind of work. If I were able to show that the money was being spent in an extravagant way, I think hon. Members opposite, who are imbued with a spirit of economy, would be loth to find this money, but if, on the other hand, the Minister can satisfy us that he is encouraging technical education, which is so badly wanted, we shall get this Vote without very much delay. That is on what I want to get a clear, definite explanation from the President. Is it being spent to encourage free places? Is it being spent on technical education? Is it being spent in order to improve the present existing buildings, to secure smaller classes and more teachers? It depends on the lead now given by the President. If he tells us that he has determined, in spite of all the circulars issued by his Department—Memorandum 44, Circular 1371—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must really confine himself to the question before the Committee.

Mr. HARRIS: I was only going to say that if he were to tell us he was going to encourage secondary education, to stick to his original policy outlined in the last 12 months, we would be the first to grant him this Vote.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I should like to support the appeal made by the two previous speakers, particularly that we should have some details of the way in which this £360,000 is being spent. But I would like more particularly to ask for information with regard to the £20,000 which the right hon. Gentleman hopes further to save on the Estimates. The Committee will remember that when he introduced the Estimates at the beginning of the year, he took great pride in the very considerable reductions he had made on the preceding year, and, in the light of the policy for the coming year, I think we can express some surprise that he allowed so much as £20,000 to slip through unobserved. I would par-
ticularly like to know if there is any saving being made with regard to adult education.

Mr. J. H.HUDSON: I will not take part in any criticism against this extra sum of £360,000, in view of the fact that there is, apparently, somewhere in the country, a force that has been able to drive the President of the Board of Education into doing his duty, or, at least, part of his duty, in the matter of higher education. But I do join with my colleagues in questioning the wisdom of diminishing the total by the £20,000 mentioned in connection with "grants for higher education to bodies other than local education authorities." I am sorry we have not a statement explaining exactly what is the nature of this £20,000 saving, for I might have been able to speak more explicitly, but I can say at the moment there is in the country a very large amount of educational effort that should receive from the Board of Education much more encouragement than it has actually been receiving.
The Workers' Educational Association is only one example of the kind of activity I have in mind—people with a keen educational outlook, who are experimenting, and who certainly ought to have had that £20,000 that the President is attempting to save, and, indeed, a great deal more besides. There is, for example, in matters of development of culture, a much greater need for the expenditure of public money amongst the organisations which are taking up activities of this sort, and I feel pretty certain that the Minister will not be able to justify the attempt to save this £20,000 when the money could have been so well spent. I am particularly suspicious about the item of £5,000, "Aid to Students." I, again, wish we might have had an explicit statement of what this £5,000 implies. The Minister could have made a little easier many of the struggles of students at the present time by the expenditure of that £5,000.
Again, in the universities and technical schools you have men and women who are very badly in need of some help and maintenance grants to enable them to carry out their work and their educational studies. I hope the President of the Board of Education will believe me when I say that I introduce what I am saying in no carping spirit. I remember
too well the many struggles I had as a student, supported by working-class parents who went short of necessary things in order to assist me in my educational development. There are thousands of men and women in this country at the present time who are badly short. Although there are scholarships, and studentships, and other means of helping they are insufficient to maintain the students during their educational period. I am particularly sorry to see that there is £20,000 being saved on this particular item. I am certain that it could have been expended effectively in one of the ways I have suggested, and I hope that the Minister will be able to suggest to us some means whereby in the future there can be provided a greater expenditure in this particular direction.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I shall be very glad to give any explanation I can. The hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Cove) started off by saying that these Supplementary Estimates represented no expansion in our system of higher education. I think I am quoting the hon. Gentleman correctly. He is wrong. In 1924–25 the expenditure by local authorities on higher education was £11,475,000 odd, and the expenditure covered by this Supplementary Estimate, and by the original Estimate, of which this is the supplementary, is £12,000,000. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his suggestion. Then the hon. Member who spoke before asked whether there was any lessened expenditure on adult education. The answer is no.

Mr. COVE: My figures were taken from the Estimates of last year. There were the figures given of the Grants-in-Aid for higher education.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member does not seem to realise that there are certain disallowances of duplicate expenditure in the case of the local education authorities for higher education.

Mr. COVE: I would repeat that I have taken the figures from last year's Estimates.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is entirely wrong—

Mr. COVE: No, I am not.

10. P.M.

Lord E. PERCY: —in saying that we are providing less money for higher education this year than was provided last year. We are providing for more than half a million expenditure extra on higher education this year than was provided for last year.

Mr. COVE: On a point of Order. I stated that I took the figures from the Estimates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. COVE: It is a point of explanation. The President persisted in saying that I was misrepresenting the figures.

Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member now realises that he had mistaken the figures of the Estimates. The figures I am giving are the figures of the actual expenditure. On the subject of adult education, nothing in the Estimates can restrict the amount or the number of adult classes being provided in the present year. The amount is the amount for classes which were organised as far back as 18 months ago. Other hon. Members have asked for an explanation of the savings which are mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate. There is £15,000 out of £20,000 saving in the grants for higher education to bodies other than local education authorities, due to the fact that there has been a slight reduction in the number of pupils in schools not maintained by the local education authorities. There is an item which is put down as £5,000 (aid to students), and that is accounted for by the fact that some university scholarships have been postponed till next year. I come to the questions that have been asked as to how is this increased expenditure distributed over the various services? Hon. Members know that I can only at this time make an estimate of what the local authorities are going to spend up to the end of the year. This distribution is the estimated distribution.
Our estimate of the distribution is this, that as compared with the estimate on which our original Estimates were based secondary schools are going to cost more by £350,000, and technical schools are going to cost more by £220,000. There is a slight increase in loan charges, there is an increase in administration charges,
there is an increase—and this is what will interest the hon. Member—of £80,000 over our original Estimate in aids to students, and there is an increase of about £25,000 in the miscellaneous expenditure on higher education. That is how we estimate the total amount to be made up. I need hardly say that I do not like introducing a Supplementary Estimate of any kind. I would only point out to the House that in the past two years the original Estimates of the Board have been over estimates by an amount of rather over 3 per cent. each year. This Supplementary Estimate shows that my estimate last year was an under estimate by rather less than ½ of 1 per cent. I told the House on my original Estimate that I was taking a risk, and the risk has been shown to amount to ½ of 1 per cent.; but in the interests of close estimating the Committee will agree with me, I think, that this is a desirable advance towards more exact estimating.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord might have told us what is the reason for the increased expenditure in the secondary schools. Is it entirely due to the larger number of pupils? Is it due to higher expenditure? Or is it due to the larger amount of assistance being given to secondary school teachers whose salaries have been raised? The Noble Lord might have enlightened us on each one of those points. It would certainly be to the advantage of the Committee that we should know what are the items in the balance sheets of local authorities which have led to this much higher grant than was anticipated at the time. I need hardly say that so far as I am concerned I am delighted to hear that it has been necessary to spend more money on the secondary and technical schools, and I only trust that when the Noble Lord is thinking of his policy for the future he will not put a stop to this progressive development, which is one of the things to which, I believe, the Government were pledged in their election manifesto and in their first King's Speech and which has been rather rudely upset by the announcement of the Noble Lord's policy in the recent circulars.
Are we not entitled to know upon what grounds and upon what items there has been this increased expenditure? The Noble Lord has given us a brief resume of the figures as a whole, but they throw
no light on the actual work of the schools, and if he could put a little more colour into his description and let us know what benefits are to be gained, and whether a larger number of pupils are to obtain these benefits, he would more fully justify the Vote before the Committee. I have no objection whatever to close estimating. It certainly is very much better that he should be ½ of 1 per cent. out than that he should be 3 per cent. out in his Estimates, and I am delighted to think he comes down to this House boldly to ask for extra money for education; hut if he wants the Committee to justify the expenditure surely he ought to let us know in more detail the items on which it has been spent, or will be spent before the 31st March.
One other point I wish to mention has reference to the appropriations-in-aid which appear in this Supplementary Estimate and are for recoveries of grants. Does that mean recoveries of grant under all heads, or only under the head of higher education? Is it possible that these recoveries of grants refer to grants which were made to the elementary schools, and not to the secondary schools only? There is nothing in this Paper to throw any light on that point. I hope the Noble Lord will let us know whether these recoveries of grants by way of adjustment cover the whole range of education—elementary, secondary, university and technical, and so on, or whether it is merely a readjustment as regard secondary and technical classes only.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: With regard to further assistance for children who are going to secondary schools, I would like to inquire if any portion of this increased grant is going to assist travelling expenses? In rural areas in particular, as the Minister knows very well, a great amount of hardship is caused—often it is impossible for boys and girls to take advantage of scholarships—on account of the travelling expenses involved. I know of cases in my own constituency where boys and girls go four, five, eight or ten miles to secondary schools, and have to spend many shillings per week. I should be glad if the Noble Lord could say that with this increase he is making it easier for boys and girls to get to the secondary schools, particularly in rural districts.

Mr. COVE: The Noble Lord disputed my figures and rather suggested that I was confusing estimates and actual expenditure, and that the additions I had made were also entirely wrong. I have since looked up the main Estimate, and I find the following figures under the heading "D I, Grants for Higher Education, 1924–25, £4,989,000." His own estimate for this year, 1925–26, is £4,740,000 Therefore he had a reduction on the figures embodied in the Estimate of £249,010. Now he comes along and asks for an extra amount which really amounts to, as far as I can trace these figures, not an increase of £360,000 at all, but an increase of round about £100,000.
I hope the Noble Lord will realise that it is he himself who has been trying to make confusion in these figures. Further, I would like to follow the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea West (Mr. Runciman) with regard to Appropriations-in-Aid. As far as I can follow the Estimates, even as they were brought in last year, no distinction was made as between secondary appropriations and elementary appropriations. Further, I find in the Estimates for last year a figure of £50,000, and now the right hon. Gentleman seems to have got that amount back from the local authorities, and he says that on looking back he hopes to get £160,000 back. Is that got out of the Estimates for secondary and elementary education, or does the elementary side bear a greater burden than the secondary side? I would also like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has been putting the screw on local authorities in this direction.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rather rejoice that the Noble Lord has been obliged to ask for an increase on the original Estimate, and if it indicates nothing else, it Shows at least that the local authorities have not on this occasion been guilty of what they have been more than once indirectly accused of by the Noble Lord, that is, exaggerating their Estimates. On this occasion, so far from exaggerating, they have somewhat minimised their demands. It is very gratifying to see that the President is asking for some measure of increase over and above his original Estimate. I would like him to take it that we regard this increase not as in any degree satisfactory, looking at it from the standpoint of the general education interests of the nation.
One or two interesting facts arise from these figures. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that there are fewer people in the non-local education authority schools. I wonder whether the real explanation of that is that the parents of those children are finding that the economic condition of the time is making it impossible for them to send their children to schools where the fees are a little higher than in the normal secondary schools. If that be so, then obviously those parents must in consequence of that situation divert their children from the more expensive schools to the less expensive and municipally-aided schools. I gather that the Noble Lord indicated that there is an increase of about £350,000 in the secondary schools. Is that increase commensurate with the extra strain that will fall upon the secondary schools, assuming the parents have diverted their children from the more expensive to the less expensive schools? That means that our secondary and municipally-owned schools must provide a larger number of places for children than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, I submit that an increase of only £350,000 for the secondary schools of the country is surely an extremely inadequate sum spread over the whole country in days like these under the conditions which now prevail.
The other question is this. I am afraid I did not take the Noble Lord's figures down very accurately, but I gather that he indicated that there was to be an increase of £220,000 for technical education. Of course, I rejoice like other hon. Members that there has been some small degree of increase in this respect, but in these days £220,000 of an increase for technical education is a hopelessly inadequate sum for equipping our children with the technical knowledge which they must need in these difficult times. If I may be allowed to do so, I would commend to the Noble Lord's attention the Report presented recently by the Federation of British Industries on this very question of technical education in America. In that Report the attention of the country is specifically drawn to the fact that there has been an enormous increase of expenditure in the United States recently upon technical education. I submit to the Noble Lord that an increase of merely £220,000 for technical
education is surely an inadequate sum if we are to equip our pupils for a rivalry which must necessarily come in future years between ourselves and other nations. I gather, again, from the Noble Lord, that there is to be, in fact, a slight increase, at any rate, in the expenditure upon adult education. I should like to know whether that implies that a larger sum of money is to be placed at the disposal of the various colleges in the country for the development of their extra-mural studies. In my country, for instance—in the Principality—

Lord E. PERCY: That has nothing to do with this Estimate.

Mr. JONES: The Noble Lord tells me that that has nothing to do with this Estimate, and, therefore, I abandon the point. I should like, however, to have an assurance from him on the two points I have raised—whether his statement that there are fewer pupils in non-L.E.A. schools indicates what I have suggested, namely, the diversion of a certain number of pupils, by parents who previously were better-to-do than they are now, from these better-class schools to the municipally-owned secondary schools, and, if so, whether this additional sum of £350,000 which is to be spent upon the secondary schools covers that obvious extra strain upon the secondary schools.

Lord E. PERCY: I am very glad to answer the questions that have been put to me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) is really asking me to justify the expenditure of the local authorities in the current year, of which, naturally, I have no detailed estimates, nor even approximate estimates later than October. It is one of the difficulties of the present grant system as now administered, that I am paying on expenditure during the year as I go along, and, therefore, it is very difficult for me to answer questions as to what exactly is the justification for this local expenditure. I think, however, I can probably answer the right hon. Gentleman's main question. I think the extra expenditure on secondary schools has been partly due to the fact that there has been a larger increase in the number of students admitted to secondary schools last September than was anticipated. That answers also, I think, the question
of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), as to whether the diminution in the number of pupils in non-local education authority schools was going to throw an undue strain on the local authorities. I do not think it will throw an undue strain on them, but any small reduction in non-local education authority schools has been far more than offset by the very large increase in the schools maintained by local authorities. That is one reason for the increase in expenditure on secondary schools.
Another reason, I think, has been the making up of arrears of staff. One of the difficulties in our secondary schools at present is that they are rather worse staffed in proportion to number of pupils than they were before the War. That is due to a very obvious cause. You have had this great increase in the number of pupils since the War. You have had an enormous increase in the number of admissions, and the supply of teachers has not caught up with this very large increase. There have been additional staffs engaged in the last year out of proportion to the number of additional students admitted. That, I think is the other main reason for the increased cost. There have also been in one or two areas certain reductions of fees, but I do not think that is responsible for any large part of the increase. The two factors I have named are probably responsible for the greater part of the sum.
I can only tell the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) that the grant estimated for 1924–25 was estimated on an expenditure by local authorities which was assumed at £12,060,000. As a matter of fact they only spent £11,475,000. That is to say, the Estimate was based on an over-estimate of local expenditure of nearly £600,000. It is a question of figures and does not involve any criticism of anyone who drew up the Estimates. I have been questioned on the subject of travelling expenses. There again we are dealing not with a matter of policy, but with what has been spent in this year, eleven months of which have now elapsed, and I do not know how much of the £80,000 extra aid to students is represented by these travelling expenses. I have been asked as to this £160,000 Appropriation-in-Aid. They are merely settlements with local authorities on
account of over-estimates, and consequently over-payments to local authorities in previous years. It has nothing to do with this year. Indeed it has nothing whatever with any year during which I have been in office. It is the settlement of accounts carried over from past years and the result of overpayment of local authorities due to over-estimating. As to technical education, the hon. Member said, "this paltry sum of £220,000." It must be remembered that technical education in my Estimate covers a vast range of evening classes and miscellaneous items, all of which are very important, especially for the purpose of keeping youths who are unemployed off the streets. But what the hon. Member had in mind was, I think, something rather different—an expansion of facilities for really higher technical education. I quite agree that is one of the great problems before this country. But let us remember this.

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord appears to be going into a matter of general educational policy. I do not see how he connects it with this Vote.

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I was led away by the seductiveness of the hon. Member. I think I have answered all the points I can properly answer and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a Grant-in-Aid.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should hesitate to say anything which might be uncomplimentary to you, Mr. Hope, but I think you might have noticed that the Secretary of State for Scotland was anxious to rise in his place and explain this Vote. May we have his explanation before we proceed?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) would have had some con-
sideration for the patience of the Committee. Day by day we have had continual complaints on behalf of himself and his hon. Friends that there is not enough money spent on education. When a little more money was wanted on the last Vote, he raised a difficulty, and now he tries to raise a difficulty about a matter of which he knows nothing. This is purely an automatic Vote in regard to teachers' superannuation. Certain sums have to be paid to teachers in Scotland who have contributed to the superannuation fund and have now with drawn. It is not a question of policy, but a matter of pure book-keeping. If the right hon. Gentleman had had a little more consideration he would not have interfered in a matter which he does not
understand.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This Vote is due to our having slightly underestimated the number of those, particularly of ladies in the teaching profession, who on getting married have withdrawn their money from the Fund. I do not know whether it is a matter that this Committee can congratulate them upon or not, but it is a very simple matter, and I hope the Committee will accept it without further question.

Mr. MAXTON: I gather that this is in respect of an additional sum of £3,800 for refund of teachers' superannuation contributions. How is it that the Department was so far out in its anticipation of the number of Scottish lady teachers who would be married during the year? Usually in that particular walk of life long engagements are the rule, and it would have been easy to make a much better estimate than is shown by this big difference. Is the whole of the additional money required, as stated in the footnote to D2, due to the withdrawal of teachers from service on marriage? Is it not also the case that male teachers who withdraw from the teaching profession to enter some other walk of life are also entitled to withdraw their superannuation payment? Have there been any withdrawals for that reason by male teachers, as distinct from lady teachers? How many teachers have withdrawn from the Fund, seeing that the revised Estimate of the refund is £15,100, and what was the average sum each drew in the way of repayment of superannuation? The reason I am asking is this. I
am anxious to know what is the average term of service of these young ladies who are now leaving the teaching profession to be married. It is of considerable importance, because if we spend a large sum of money in training these lady teachers and only get one year or two years' service from them it is not good economy. Then again, if no men are leaving, only women, it would be a sound policy on the part of the Secretary for Scotland to encourage the employment of men teachers rather than women teachers in our public elementary schools.

Lieut. -Commander BURNEY: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that this is merely a matter of account and bookkeeping, and not a matter of policy at all?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is arguing to the effect that the Scottish Education Department ought to have been better able to estimate the number of women teachers who would get married during the year.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is it not merely foolish obstruction.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw!

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to accuse anyone taking part in the Debate of "foolish obstruction"?

The CHAIRMAN: If it were not in order, then many Chairmen and many Speakers have been guilty of a dereliction of duty. I have often heard that phrase used.

Mr. MAXTON: And I should be the last person to resent it. There appears to be a tendency when a Scottish Member gets up in order to ask for information as to the affairs of his own country to consider that a wrong use is being made of the time of the Committee. If I am mistaken, if this is merely a bookkeeping entry and not a really genuine payment out of the Scottish Education Fund, then it is merely obstruction on my part. But I understand that it is definite money which is being taken out of the exchequer because the Estimate at the beginning of the year was an under estimate.

Sir H. CRAIK: Does not the hon. Member know that this is merely a book-
keeping entry? Is he not aware that by legislation of this House the system of superannuation was changed, and payments have had to be made merely as a consequence of that change?

Mr. MAXTON: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Member, but I would not like to suggest that his interpolation is "foolish obstruction." The Statute he has quoted is well known to me and it was well known to the Department at the beginning of the year. The Department estimated that on this item they would have to pay out so much money, and it has been found that their estimate is not sufficient. They are now asking for more money. I have one or two specific questions which I think are perfectly legitimate. One is: why they could not estimate the number of lady teachers who were likely to be married? I should imagine that is a fairly stable quantity in Scotland; I know the lady teachers in Scotland very well. I know that they are much sought after as the wives of sensible young men in Scotland, but that desire on the part of Scotsmen to have Scottish lady teachers as their wives is not greatly variable from year to year. I want to know what has been the cause of this undue exuberance on the part of Scottish teachers.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think I could explain that. The hon. Member will find, if he studies the statistics, that it follows very closely the cost of living.

Mr. MAXTON: But during the last year Scottish young men were not in the position to know that the right hon. Gentleman's houses would have been so near completion. That ought to have done something to retard matters rather than the reverse. That is one question—why last year was a peak year in the demands made on the Scottish Superannuation Fund? Secondly, and very seriously—it is awfully difficult in this House, for unless you are as dull as ditch water people do not think you want any information—secondly, I want to ask whether it is entirely due to women leaving the profession or whether there are not also a number of men leaving the profession and wanting their money back? Thirdly, I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us some idea of the total number of persons who left the teaching profession in Scotland
last year for matrimonial or other reasons, and roughly what was—I do not expect him to have these figures in his head, for he seldom has any figures that we want in his head—the average length of service of the persons who have left and asked for a return-of their superannuation payments?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course these are moneys which have been contributed, in the first place, by the teachers. They contribute 5 per cent. towards superannuation. It is true that an error was made in estimating the numbers who would leave the service, either for the main reason of marriage or for other reasons. The original Estimate was framed after consultation with the education authorities, but it was found that they had miscalculated from previous experiences, and that something like 500 left the service last year when we had estimated that only 400 would do so. It is difficult to explain why there was this sudden rise, mainly accountable for by marriage. While the individual may leave the service for marriage or other reasons, it does not follow that he will immediately withdraw the contribution due at that time. Indeed, in many cases these contributions are withdrawn subsequently only when the circumstances of the individual appear to place pressure upon him. It may be that some of it is due to that fact. Be that as it may, we have quite frankly under-estimated the number by something like 100, and that is the reason for the Estimate to which I ask the Committee now to agree. I am afraid I cannot commit myself on the subject of the average number of years' service which these people give before leaving the Service. I think it varies considerably, and I would not like to state a definite figure now. But, if the hon. Member wishes, I will make inquiries.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF CONTROL, ENGLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,860, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control
(Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England, and Grants in respect of the Maintenance of certain Ex-Service Mental Patients.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): This is a revised Supplementary Estimate. The Committee will remember I introduced a similar Estimate the other day, one item in which had relation to the legal proceedings in the case of Harnett v. Bond, and the point was raised at the time that there was a difficulty in discussing it, having regard to the fact that another case was pending. In these circumstances, I am now presenting the Estimate again with that item omitted. All the other matters in the Estimate are the same, and the Committee will probably remember the explanation which I gave previously.

Mr. AMMON: When this Vote was before the Committee before I asked the hon. Gentleman in charge whether under the heading "BB, Special Inquiries," there was any reference to certain investigations which are being carried on by his Department with reference to mental cases and particularly cases of encephalitis lethargica. It will be in the hon. Gentleman's knowledge that recently I called the attention of his Department and the Home Office to the case of a youth who was charged at the Lambeth Police Court with stealing a shilling. It was found on investigation of his antecedent history that he had been affected by this disease which had left him mentally and morally impaired. I received an intimation that the Department had entered into some arrangement with the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the London County Council to provide treatment to meet such cases, and I understand that a committee of inquiry has been sitting under the aegis of the Ministry to inquire into these cases with a view to suggesting means of ensuring that such persons shall not be in the position of being brought before the Courts as criminals or put into asylums as lunatics. I ask the hon. Member if he can give the Committee any information as to whether his Department is proceeding in respect of this question and whether there is anything relating to it in the Vote.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I approach this matter with some diffidence because I
feel I am treading on rather delicate ground, when I say that the Minister knows very little about the question involved in this Vote. I suggest that the Minister knows nothing about the work of the Board of Control except the fact that so much money has to be spent upon it, and I suggest the money that is paid for the salaries of these people is money wasted.

The CHAIRMAN: To what item is the hon. Member directing his remarks?

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am referring to the payment of staff under this Vote for the Board of Control.

Sir K. WOOD: The items are for special inquiries, contributions towards expenses of local authorities, and maintenance of patients and staff. There is no item in respect of the salaries of the staff of the Board of Control. That will appear on the main Estimate, and I have no doubt the hon. Member will be able to raise this point when it is presented.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I assure the hon. Gentleman I will take that opportunity of raising the question. I want to know, in regard to the amount under heading BB, what inquiries are taking place. We have been promised inquiries as to people who have been incarcerated in asylums and who ought not to be there, such as children, adolescents, shell-shocked ex-soldiers, neurasthenics and others. I submit that in many of these cases the result of putting them into asylums is to make them worse rather than better. In raising this matter, I wish to help the Ministry. I want to make the mental hospital a real hospital and not so much of a prison as it is at present. I want, therefore, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if these inquiries are being set up, under which head they are being set up, and whether some provision can be made for these people.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I want to say one word with regard to the revised form in which these Estimates appear. The Committee will remember that, acting on your suggestion, the Minister withdrew the Vote dealing with the Harnett v. Bond case. As the Estimate is presented to us, as the Minister has already told us, it has simply had that particular item
knocked off before it comes to our cognisance to-night, but what I want to know is, what is the actual fact with regard to the money? I think those who saw the original Estimate can be under no misapprehension that the money has actually been paid, and what, therefore, I take it is happening is that we are deferring until next year the passage of the amount which the Department has actually, in some shape or form, disbursed.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask is the hon. Member in Order in discussing money which is not in the Estimate?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think he is, but I will hear him.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The point I am endeavouring to make is this. Here is a sum of money which the Department has actually spent.

Mr. HERBERT: It is not here.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not in this Vote, but I am sure it must be in order to draw attention to the fact that the Department has spent this money and is not coming to ask—

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. There is no evidence of any such sum in the Estimate. If there be such, presumably the Public Accounts Committee in their vigilance, on the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, will find it out and call on the Government to account for it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will put my remark in the form of a question. I should like to know from the Minister whether this money has been spent? If it has not been spent, what are the facts which enable it to be excluded from this revised Estimate?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Minister would not be entitled to answer that question.

Major GLYN: There is only one question I want to ask. When this matter was raised with the Ministry of Pensions the other day we were told that the Ministry had got certain mental hospitals for ex-service men. This vote is apparently a grant in respect of provision for certain ex-service mental patients. What I want to ask is, which is the Ministry respon-
sible for looking after ex-service men? Is it the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Health?

Sir K. WOOD: In answer to the last question, my only duty this evening is to deal with the three items on the Paper on page 2. I cannot see any item on which that matter could arise. I should say that obviously a question of that kind must be directed to the Minister of Pensions.

Major GLYN: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The heading is:
Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1926, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England, and Grants in respect of the Maintenance of certain Ex-Service Mental Patients.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member has fallen into a very ordinary fault in dealing with Supplementary Estimates. He is quoting merely a recital of the title of the main Estimate, but discussion can only take place on the special items dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir K. WOOD: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, who spoke about special inquiries and what that meant, they are not a general inquiry into the lunacy laws of the country. There is a Royal Commission sitting on that matter, and we hope to have their Report at an early date. This Committee is a Committee appointed jointly by the Board of Control and the Board of Education, and it is to inquire into the incidence of mental deficiency throughout the country—it is a technical Committee—as there is a considerable lack of knowledge as to the number of cases, and what arrangements should be made for dealing with them.

Mr. AMMON: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when they are likely to report?

Sir K. WOOD: On that, I have been making inquiries, and we hope that the investigation might end by March, 1927. It is being conducted by one of the principal officers of the Board of Control, but it may possibly continue for a further year, as we have come to the conclusion that it is important to get accurate information as to the real extent of the
problem. I am very glad to reply also to the point put by the hon. Member opposite with regard to the newly recognised disease to which he alluded. It was first discovered, I believe, in this country in 1918, and I may say that I think it will be agreed by all experts that it is only in the last two or three years that the disastrous mental effects of this disease have come to light. It is true that it is a notifiable infectious disease, and local health authorities have power to treat cases in their isolation hospitals, but there is no duty on the authorities to provide for persons suffering from the mental after effects, and outside London, I regret to say, there is no hospital provision.
11.0 P.M.
A certain number of cases are certifiable and are sent to mental hospitals or mental deficiency institutions. In some of the larger areas, in London and Lancashire, they are concentrated in a mental hospital and one mental deficiency institution in each area. It was decided last year—and this really answers the hon. Member's question—to establish a hospital unit of 100 beds, in London for cases under 15 years of age, under the Metropolitan Asylums Board. We are admitting children of either sex. It is an experiment, and we hope to be able to gain much more knowledge of the unfortunate after-effects of this disease than we have at the present time. We feel that our present powers in connection with dealing with this disease are insufficient. The definition of mental deficiency is very limited. It really prevents our making the necessary arrangements so far as detention is concerned, and we have not the powers which we consider we ought to have at the present time.

Mr. AMMON: Is anything being done in the case of adolescents, where, I think the hon. Gentlemen will agree, the real paint of trouble comes in?

Sir K. WOOD: Although they will be admitted under 15, we are not strictly adhering to that particular age, and in some cases they may be discharged at a much older age. So far as the Board of Control are concerned, they have come to the conclusion that in a very large number of these cases, the people who are proceeded against should not certainly be treated as criminals, and we want to
make permanent provision for them. My right hon. Friend has under consideration now the question of what further steps shall be taken. The hon. Member raised a very important question which is demanding, and, I think, is receiving, the attention of a very large number of people who are interested, not only in mental deficiency, but in the welfare of a number of young people who are, unfortunately, suffering, and are occasionally brought before the Courts of this country. We have made provision, and we hope, if further powers are given to us, we shall be able to do something still more in a matter which certainly requires attention at the present time.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): It might be convenient if I explain shortly the reason for this Vote. As the Committee know, if there is an excess on a certain item, although in the aggregate the amount of the original Estimate may not be exceeded, a token Vote is necessary. In the case of the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour, the additional expenditure is more than counterbalanced by savings in other directions and Appropriations-in-Aid.
The item of £230,000 is required to pay for the additional temporary staff at the Employment Exchanges for work occasioned by the Acts of 1924 and 1925, and by the greater volume of unemployment as compared with the Estimate, which
originally was £1,100,000. The £230,000 is not required for the salaries of any of the directing officers or of anyone engaged in determining claims to benefit, but as I have stated. The next item, £450,000, is a contribution to the Unemployment Fund and represents the amount required by way of contribution from the State. As the Committee will realise, that amount is quite outside the control of the Minister, because it entirely depends upon the contributions which are paid by insured persons and employers. The increased contribution by the State is due, I think, probably, to the relatively larger number of persons who have been working short time, three days on and three days off. It is probably also due to a greater compliance with the Act in the payment of contributions.
The savings on the Appropriations-in-Aid are dealt with in the next two items. The Savings under Sub-head N—industrial training of disabled ex-service men—are £350,000 out of £439,000. On 16th February of this year we found the number was 2,426, and the average cost of their maintenance, including allowances, had undergone a change. The numbers of men put into training have largely gone down. There has been no alteration of terms and conditions. The £240,000 Appropriation-in-Aid represents an increase in the cost of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and receivable from the Unemployment Fund. I trust, after this brief explanation that I have given of the items the Committee will let us have this Vote.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Committee, I am sure, were interested in the explanation given by the Minister on this Vote. In regard to the estimate made of the number of the unemployed, the Minister might have been a bit more explicit than he has been, and given us the reason why there was this extraordinary lack of appreciation of what the volume of unemployment would be. He said, "For some reason or the other." I think he should have given us some of the particular reasons which led to this increase. The figures must cause a lot of reflection—1,100,000 in the estimate, and 1,230,000 in actual experience. Visualising the amount of suffering entailed, I hope the Government and the Minister will be
active in seeking to do something more for those people.
There has been a big and necessary addition to the clerical staff in connection with the Exchanges. I put it to the Minister that possibly a bigger saving could be made under that head if there were a larger spirit of generosity in dealing with claims. It seems to me that in connection with some of the claims, in particular the claims of married women, there is a needless amount of questioning. Ever so many of these cases go to the court of referees, whereas if the Minister gave instructions that where there appeared to be a prima facie case for the granting of benefit this extraordinary scrutiny should not be imposed, not so many of these cases would be carried to the court of referees. Under the Statute, unless a person is a member of a trade union he is not entitled to go from the court of referees to the Umpire. There have been various cases where there has been an appeal from the court of referees to the Umpire, and almost invariably, I am informed, the decision of the Umpire has been in favour of the person concerned.

The CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. Gentleman connect this with the staff of the Exchanges?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I submit to you, Sir, that the hon. Member is quite right in arguing this point in so far—

The CHAIRMAN: I was asking the hon. Gentleman himself to argue it.

Mr. STEPHEN: The way I am connecting my argument with this Estimate is this: According to the statement of the Minister, a certain amount of this money is required because, owing to the increase in the number of the unemployed, it has been necessary to secure additional staff; and I have been suggesting that this additional staff would not have been necessary if—taking the case of the married women as an example—the Ministry showed a more generous spirit in dealing with claims and did not make unnecessary investigations.
Those investigations I am assured only result in the persons concerned getting their claim admitted if they are members of a trade union. I would suggest that we should have an assurance in connec-
tion with this class of people and the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us if this matter is interesting him. With regard to the item for a contribution to the unemployment fund the hon. Member tried to give us some idea of it, and ho pointed out that the amount was dependent upon the contributions paid to the fund by the employers and employed and we were told it was due to the fact that systematic short time was being worked. I think we should be given something more definite. This is a big sum of money which the State is called upon to contribute, but in regard to the whole scheme it is necessary that the Committee should have fuller information. The reasons for this additional staff and the investigations they are making should be put before the Committee, and we should have something more than a mere bald statement that it is due to systematic short time.
With regard to the last Item in the Vote, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about savings in this connection, but I am inclined to think that those savings ought not to have been made, and they are economies for which the Committee will not thank the Department. This is where I think we have a weak part in the administration. With reference to improvers. If we had an assurance that the number was going down because they were being absorbed into regular employment we should be able to rejoice with the Parliamentary Secretary. In our constituencies some of us meet people who have received this training and who have been afterwards left to sink or swim. I would like the representative of the Government to give us a better idea as to how these courses of training are going on and also give us the figures of the number of improvers who have been put into employment, and who have been asking for additional assistance from the Minister. I think the Minister will see the force of the remarks I have made, and will be able to give us some information on this Vote, which, in so far as it is meant to help the unemployed, will receive the hearty support of all on these benches, but, in so far as it means that there is not the generous administration that there ought to be in connection with providing for the needs of these people, will receive our unrelenting opposition.

Mr. PALING: I desire to raise the question of Subhead A, "Additional Temporary Staff at Employment Exchanges for work occasioned by the Unemployment Insurance Acts." I would like to know what is meant exactly by temporary staff. I asked a question about a fortnight ago as to how many women were employed in the exchanges up and down the country who were regarded as temporary, and how many of these women had periods of service to their credit varying from five to ten years. I have not the figures with me, but I think the answer was that the number of women engaged as temporary clerks was just over 700, and that, of these, about 250 had periods of service varying from five to ten years to their credit. I asked a supplementary question as to whether it was the intention of the Department to get rid of these women as quickly as possible, and to replace them by young trainees. The Minister said he was not able to answer that question without notice, but that if I would put a question down as to details he would try to answer it. I am taking advantage of this opportunity to get to know.
All of these women, and particularly those with long periods of service, are living in constant fear of having their job taken away from them. It would be, I believe, true to say that most of them have been shifted from one exchange to another. Some of them, second and first-grade clerks, have been shifted at very short notice to another exchange within a few miles and down-graded, perhaps, one or two grades. I would like to ask if it is the intention of the Department to carry this on, and to down-grade these women, shift them about, and keep them in constant fear of losing their job; and, if that be so, I would ask why?
Is the Minister aware, also, that some of these women came to work for the Department in the Employment Exchanges at the invitation of high officials in those exchanges? I have a case here of a young woman who was engaged as a librarian, and who, at the invitation of two high officials in the exchange, left her job to come into the Labour Department. She had taken a keen interest in the question of juvenile unemployment, and, I suppose because of that, she was approached by the officials, and was practically promised that the job would be permanent. She has been engaged in that work from that day to this—nearly eight years. She has
admittedly given excellent service, she has been very efficient and capable during all those years, and I do not think she has had a complaint of any description against her; and yet she is shifted at a day or two's notice to another exchange and down-graded, and is told at the same moment that she must hold herself in readiness for receiving a month's notice to have done with the job altogether.
I want to ask, what is the position of these women who have given such long and excellent service, who were invited to come into the exchanges by the officials, and some of whom have reached middle age? What is the chance, after they have been turned off from the Employment Exchanges, of their getting another job in this country, in the present state of the unemployed market? This is not good enough for a Government Department of the character of which he is at the head. This Government, particularly the Labour Department, look to employers up and down the country to give their people decent treatment. If they do, the Labour Department is the Department of all Departments in the Government service that ought to treat its employes well. I do not think anyone, even the Minister himself, would suggest that these women are being treated at all well. He may say they have had the opportunity of going through a kind of qualifying examination. I believe they have, but is it likely that the thousands of these women, who are 40 or 45 years of age, would feel capable or desirous of entering an examination? Some of them feel they ought not to be called upon to go through this examination. Is it asking too much that they shall have some consideration for the service they have given and not be under the constant fear of having their jobs taken away from them? Then is it a fact that the places of these women who get notice is taken mostly by young girls of about 18, who in some cases have been employed about three months? I believe they pass some kind of qualifying examination, and have had their training under the very women whom they are to supersede. This is not good enough, and I think the Minister would be the last man in the world to complain that these women are fighting against the position in which they find themselves. I ask him to study the position once again and see
if he cannot make it easier, particularly for those who have had long service, and make it possible to retain their services, in so far as they care to remain, while they are capable of giving good and efficient service.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to savings. This is in regard, I think, to men who were sent from the Ministry of Pensions, if my surmise is right, to receive training in certain occupations under the Ministry of Labour. According to the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary, provision was made for the training of 4,000 odd of these disabled men, but for some reason or another only just over 2,000 have had to receive it. I should like to know what is the reason for a tremendous reduction like that in the number of these trainees. The Parliamentary Secretary also said some of these people, improvers, had left. Is he confident that a big proportion of these improvers have left because they found other jobs, or did they leave because they were dissatisfied with the conditions under which they found themselves as trainees? I have had complaints from some of these people who have been in these jobs that everything has not been as they wished, and some of them have wished they had never gone in for the business at all. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether any of this reduction is due to the fact that some of these people have felt themselves entirely dissatisfied with the conditions, and as a consequence have left, and whether that in itself is responsible for some of the great reduction from 4,000 to 2,000 of the number so employed.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: While recognising the able and lucid explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, there are one or two questions I wish to put to him with regard to the salaries, wages and allowances—an increase of £230,000. I should like to ask whether, supposing the officials had not been very active since July last in restricting all benefit and had not spent so much time in turning down the recommendations of the rota committees and a more generous, liberal-minded administration had been in force, it would be necessary to employ so many other hands on the clerical staff? Since July there has been a great deal
more time spent in investigating the very hard administration of extended benefit, and in addition to having £230,000 extra to find from the State, there has been, as a result of refusal of extended benefit on a wholesale scale, a considerable amount of extra money to be found from the local rates, so that the public has had a double burden cast upon them by this administration. In my own district in July last 3,000 able-bodied people who were not in receipt of Unemployment Benefit had to come on to the rates, and that number had gone up to 6,000 on the 6th February, making an additional cost to the ratepayers of £1,000 a week, due partly to the excess expenditure which is shown in this Estimate with respect to administration salaries, wages and allowances. Would it not be advisable not to spend so much time in turning down by the right hon. Gentleman's officials the recommendations of the Rota Committees, which have local knowledge and which inquire carefully into the merits of the individual cases? These local unpaid committees are better able to form a judgment on the merits of an application for extended benefit than the right hon. Gentleman's superior officers, whose time would be better spent in other ways than reversing the findings of the local committees. There would have been a less sum required than £230,000 if the right hon. Gentleman's officials were not so active in turning down the claims for extended benefit.

Mr. BROAD: The explanation given by the Minister is far from satisfactory. He did not attempt to explain how it was that the Ministry made such a great mistake as to underestimate the amount of expenditure by over 10 per cent. Surely the Ministry could have made itself acquainted with the circumstances influencing unemployment and ascertain from other departments what action they intended to take which would influence unemployment. Was not the Minister informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intended to make a precipitate return to the gold standard, and was he not aware in advance of the economic consequences of that policy? There is no doubt that that policy has had a great deal to do with the question of unemployment and had the Minister and his officials been well informed and taken that factor into consideration he would
have been better able to estimate the number of unemployed. While the number of the unemployed has increased by ten per cent. above the estimate, so has the expenses of salaries, wages and allowances, which we are told is due to a greater excess of unemployment. There must be a big proportion of this extra amount which is not due to the greater volume of unemployment. It is remarkable that the amount for salaries, wages and allowances has increased by 10 per cent., almost identical with the increase of unemployment. When there is an increase of unemployment it surely does not necessitate a full increase of 10 per cent. in salaries, wages, and allowances, because a very big percentage of the Exchanges are run by permanent staffs. I should also like to ask which provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1924 and 1925, are responsible for this increase of staff; how far the Act of 1924 affected the Department in this respect; whether it is only in connection with the payment of reserve values; and whether the greater part of this increased expense is not due to the operation of the Act of 1925? We have been assured that this amount does not go to those who are in a discretionary position, but surely a great deal of the work in connection with the exchanges has been caused by the detail work of those who have been trying to keep people out of benefits. I am not quite satisfied with item (i), where you have the note
less anticipated savings on other subheads (including £395,000 on subhead N—Industrial Training of Disabled Ex-Service Men).
I should like to be assured that this is not part of an economy campaign at the expense of the ex-service men in training. Has the Department been as active as it was previously in securing improverships for men in training or have they been allowed to go free? It seems remarkable there should be a drop in the amount for improverships. Obviously it is not due to an increase of trade, because we have a greater number of unemployed. I want to know exactly how this great saving of £400,000 has been effected.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Like other hon. Members, I am much concerned at the manner in which the Ministry of Labour is endeavouring to effect economies at the expense of the trainee. A large sum is expected to be saved because of the
fewer number of ex-service men in training institutions. If there is this large decrease in the number of these men, there must be something wrong in the method of training or in the method of placing them after they have left these institutions. To my mind there is a defect in both these respects. As the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary are both aware I have taken considerable interest in these training establishments and have often gone to them. I have been refused admission by the superintendents of some of them until such time as he has had a wire from the Ministry of Labour allowing me to enter and see the conditions of training, and I say that there is something wrong both with the method of training and also with the system of placing the men once they have been trained. The whole system of training of these ex-service disabled men requires to be completely overhauled. There are good points in it, but the defects more than outweigh them.
The same remark applies to the placing of the trainees after they have left the establishments. I suggest to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that if they do what I am certain they wish to do, that is, the best possible that can be done for the ex-service men, they will at once institute an inquiry into the methods of training and placing trainees. The large saving that has been effected, the large decrease in the number of trainees compared with what was anticipated, should have convinced them, if nothing else did, that there is something radically wrong with these establishments. Otherwise, with so many ex-service men unemployed and so many who were unskilled before entering the Army, there would have been, not a diminution, but an increase in the number anticipated. I hope that the Minister will try to find out what is wrong. It would be well if the Minister did all he could to keep these men longer under training, knowing as he does, that once they have left the establishments and gone into the labour world, where there is already a large number of men seeking employment, these ex-service men, with their disabilities, are handicapped. The Ministry should train these men for a longer period instead of putting them on an overstocked labour market.
There is one other point. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the saving
was mainly effected by the reduction in the number of trainees. There are in these Estimates five items under which expenditure is incurred by the Ministry on services arising out of the War. The saving effected is put before the Committee in practically one sentence of a statement as follows: "Anticipated savings on other sub-heads (including £395,000 on sub-head N—industrial training of disabled ex-service men)." It would have been better if the Ministry had stated under the various sub-heads the amount of the saving expenditure on services arising out of the War. Having regard to the saving shown under sub-head A and the manner in which the administration is being carried out in the employment exchanges, it surprises me that the Minister should ask for additional money. I should imagine that the amount saved on the administrative work of the right hon. Gentleman's staffs throughout the country would more than balance any extra expenditure on additional temporary staff, for which the greater part of this sum is required. I know of many people who have been in work for a year or 18 months and who have stamps to their credit; yet they are being deprived of benefit, on the ground that they have had a long period of extended benefit previously and that the new stamps do not count until the amount received in extended benefit has been wiped out. I submit that procedure on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's administrative staff is out of order. The Act specifically states the qualifications necessary for benefit, and the committees, the divisional officers, the courts of referees, and the umpire himself are all governed by the Act, within the terms of which the administration must be carried out.

The CHAIRMAN: The general question of administration should be raised on the Vote for the salary of the Minister.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think this is a matter of general administration. It is a specific matter of administration, which effects a saving to the fund, and consequently one which ought to have been taken into account in connection with this Estimate. With that saving, there should be no necessity for the additional sum now sought.

The CHAIRMAN: If the Minister over-spends on a particular item, he is bound to show the sums which have been spent, and he is not entitled merely to set against the over-expenditure any saving on another item. That is the reason why this Vote for £10 is required—in order that the increased expenditure and the saving may both be set forth.

Mr. MACLEAN: My point relates to the administration of the Minister—to the courts of referees, the umpire, the committees, the divisional officers—and I submit it comes properly under the item for salaries, wages and allowances.

The CHAIRMAN: This item is for additional temporary staff at outstations.

Mr. MACLEAN: If you read further, Sir, you will sec it is for
additional temporary staff at Employment Exchange, for work occasioned by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1924 and 1925, and by the greater volume of unemployment as compared with the Estimate.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the administration of the headquarters staff, whose salaries are not borne upon this Vote.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was referring to the administration of the local bodies—the local exchanges—which in the main are responsible for refusing applications for unemployment benefit. I take it that that point is in order.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is dealing with the temporary staff, it may be in order, but I understood that he was talking about regional officials, referees, and other persons whose salaries do not appear here.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was only using that as linking up the work of the temporary staff which has been necessary to carry out the work of administration that is being done at the moment in the exchanges, putting these people out of benefit, and I was pointing out that in the local exchanges the manner in which the administration is being carried out is largely responsible for the Minister having to have a much larger temporary staff than he ought to have or need have if the administration were carried out with due regard to the Insurance Acts passed in 1924 and 1925. As I was going to point out when my attention was drawn to the fact that I seemed to be
straying, the Minister himself quite properly had put in the last Insurance Act, of 1925, a Clause giving him discretionary powers. I want to submit that though the giving of those powers must really, in effect, give to the local authorities discretionary powers in carrying out the Acts which have been passed—which may be quite all right so long as those powers are exercised where they ought to be and where this House intended they should be exercised, within the compass of the Insurance Acts—such discretionary powers were not given to those local bodies and local officials to go beyond the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I want to submit to the Minister that that is exactly what the local authorities are doing, and that is one of the reasons why these exceptionally large temporary staffs are necessary, because of the number of appeals and the number of re-hearings and cases which we get as Members of this House, and which are referred back again to the local authorities to be reconsidered. It all comes back to this: that we are asked to give the Minister of Labour and the local exchanges unnecessarily large temporary staffs because of the amount of additional work thrown on them, due to the exercise of those discretionary powers in a manner which the operation of the Acts never gave nor were expected to give to the Minister himself.
I want to submit to the Minister that if he were to carry out the Acts of Parliament in the way in which they were intended to be carried out, and if the local bodies carried them out in the way this House intended, then there would be no occasion for the Minister to come before this House and invite us to give him an additional amount of money in order to meet the expenses of a large temporary staff, which in the main is largely unnecessary in the working and operation of the Act itself.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us some guarantee or assurance. I do not intend to press upon him that he ought to give it to-night. I hope he will take into consideration many of the things which are being done by the local authorities to-day that are bearing very harshly and hardly on all individuals who are entitled to benefit, and have passed the qualifications laid down in the Act, but who, because of the discretionary powers, or excess of discretionary powers, on the
part of local officials who are going beyond the Acts themselves, are being deprived of benefits in spite of fulfilling all the qualifications necessary under the Act.
I hope the Minister will take this matter into account and go into it in a very broadminded manner, take the facts about the local authorities into calculation, and issue, as part of the discretionary powers, new regulations making the local bodies conform more rigidly to the Acts themselves and thereby do away with any necessity for him to come again to this House to ask for a Supplementary Estimate to carry on the administration.

Mr. T. SHAW: I do not want to make a long statement with regard to these Estimates, but there are certain questions that have been put which I hope the Minister will answer. He asks us to give him an additional sum of £230,000 for the staff required, because his estimate was much under the actual results. I think we have a right to ask why his estimate has been falsified, what he has done in order to prevent the falsification; and what he has done to get the number of unemployed down to the estimate that he made unless he can give answers to questions like that we must finally—if not on this stage, on Report stage—vote against this Estimate as a protest against the lack of any solution of the problem which the Government has displayed.
With regard to the contribution to the Unemployment Fund, the Committee is entitled to rather more than the statement it has heard. It was clear enough, but it was so concise that it did not give us a satisfactory explanation. We want to know why an additional contribution of £450,000 is demanded. We have to take the work of the Ministry as it appears on the sheet. We were promised stability and a hundred and one good things. What we are getting is a demand for increased cost of administration and increased payment for unemployment. What is being done to give us the stability, that increase in trade ought to have made a request of this kind absolutely unnecessary? Until we get some answers' to questions of this kind, until we know where the failure is, and what account is to be given of it, obviously we cannot be expected to vote for increases in the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates of this character. The sum of £680,000 for additional staff
and additional payments is a very tall order indeed when we were promised a new Heaven and a new Earth by the stability and capacity of the Government which is so very strong in numbers. We want to know these things, and to know them quite plainly. I do not think the Minister is wasting money on his administration staff. It is not that staff are getting money for nothing. I am quite satisfied his staff are doing any amount of work for the money they are getting. The complaint we have is against the Ministry, and through the Ministry, the Government, demanding these sums of money, when, if they carried out the policy that they intended, or should have intended to carry out, these demands would never have been made.
Another question I want to repeat is that which was put by my hon. Friend. The Minister should give us far more details with regard to Sub-head A. There the estimates have been so widely different from the actual facts that one would like definitely to be assured that these men are not suffering. It is such a tremendous change from the Estimate that I personally feel very uneasy about it. Those are the questions that I put as shortly as I can, and to which I would like the Minister definitely to answer. I cannot deal with matters of policy, and I have no intention of trying to deal with them. We shall hear from the Minister on Friday next whether their policy is likely to lead to a cessation of this kind of Budgeting and this kind of Supplementary Estimates. Then we can base our action on the Report stage. Provided we get satisfactory explanations from the Minister, it may be we shall let the Report stage go. Certainly I cannot advise my Friends, until we know what is the position, to vote against this Estimate now, but on the Report stage, unless we get some definite knowledge of what the Government's intentions are, to prevent this kind of thing arising in the future, certainly we must definitely vote against the sums demanded by the Minister.

12 M.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister. The first is with regard to the temporary staff at the Employment Exchanges. Can the hon. Gentleman state if any
additional staff have had to be added because of undue illness among the permanent staff, owing to the unsuitability of the buildings in which the staff are employed? I have in my mind two places in Glasgow, one on the south side, where there is an Exchange which is described by all and sundry as a sort of graveyard for everyone going there to work. It is an old temporary store absolutely out of date, and I am positively sure, from knowledge of local circumstances, that there is no heating arrangement, and that part of the additional cost in the Estimate is due to unnecessary illness among the staff, which would not be the case if decent accommodation were provided. There is no real accommodation for the staff. If there were decent buildings in which to work in great centres like Glasgow, I am positive the work would be done with much smaller numbers.
May I submit, also, with regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), that there is undue waste in connection with administration in the case of married women. I think the Minister of Labour ought to take from the Law Courts of this country at least some guidance. The common practice in the Law Courts is that whenever the House of Lords has decided a case, all Courts of lesser standing automatically follow the House of Lords decision. I think the Minister of Labour ought to allow the decision of the umpires to rule all decisions of a similar kind, and thus save the expense of people having to go to courts of referees and so on. The staff ought to be instructed that wherever the umpire has given a ruling, cases of a similar kind are to be ruled by that decision. As the hon. Member for Camlachie well pointed out, married women have been almost wholly disqualified from benefit if they leave or are dismissed from their work because of their marriage, and it adds to the expense, because these women make appeals to the court of referees, not once but many times, and each time that they make an appeal a considerable amount of work is thrown on the local staff. In almost every case where a married woman has appealed through the medium of a trade union to the Umpire, the Umpire has upheld the case of the woman. In Glasgow cases are going
backwards and forwards, although the Umpire has already settled a similar case which ought to guide the Court of Referees. We suggest that if the Umpire's decision were accepted, and made to govern the cases of all married women in similar circumstances, it would save considerable time and expense in unnecessary appeals, both to the applicants and the Exchange authorities. Therefore as a means of saving time and money we suggest that in the case of the married women the Umpire's decision ought to be accepted, and rule. Just another word on the position of the men. During the year I understand that the Minister of Labour has seen fit to shut up certain places for the training of disabled men at Glasgow, and other places. I want to ask if he cannot see his way clear, even yet, to re-open these places, and give the men a longer period of training? So far as I gathered from the Parliamentary Secretary there are a sufficient number of men being trained, as in the labour market advantage has not been taken of their trained labour. But it may be that advantage is not taken of their labour because sufficient money has not been spent, or a sufficiently long training has not been given. Instead of shutting down these and similar places throughout the country, he should re-open them, and give those who have had a year or two a longer period in order to fit them for civil life, and to take their chance. I submit these various points in regard to the inadequate housing and bad conditions of the staffs, disabled men, and so on. Unless we get a definite assurance on these matters some of us are going to divide on this particular Vote.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I shall endeavour to deal briefly, but I hope adequately, with the points that have been raised. If I may say a word at the start about the training of the disabled men, there has been no economy at all at their expense. As time goes on the number of those coming forward for training has decreased, and while we expected that there might be a larger number—about 4,000—they have not, as a matter of fact, come forward. The reason is that they have get absorbed into civil life: they have gone into businesses of their own, and occupied
themselves in other ways, or taken advantage of the Civil Liability Grants. I can assure the Committee that there has been no economy at all at the expense of the disabled ex-service men. On the other hand, as I have mentioned before, whatever we can do for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining employment for these men will be done by us to the utmost of our power. With regard to the two items of anticipated expenditure, the position is really quite a simple one. The hon. Member for Gor-bals (Mr. Buchanan) has suggested that the decisions of the umpire should be taken as governing future cases of the married women. That is the rule already.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into cases from Glasgow that I could submit to him where, in the case of married women, the decision has been different in similar cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad to look into any case, because I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see the proper methods adopted. At any rate, where the cases are similar the ruling of the umpire is that one case should govern the other cases. But as every Member of the Committee is aware, a case, with an apparently very slight difference, might call for a very different ruling. At any rate, I can assure him that that is not the cause of this expenditure on the staff at the out-stations, nor is it affected by the women of whom the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) has spoken. In point of fact, those women are not within the scope of this Supplementary Estimate, but I can say in passing that I think the Minister of Labour can be counted a "decent employer" in comparison with any others. What was done in the case of women who had been with us for any long time was to give them an opportunity of passing a qualifying examination; it was not a competitive examination, one in which they must rank among the first 10 or the first 50, but merely one in which their competence could be established. I do not think anyone wishing to go on the permanent staff could claim that that stipulation was unfair. There was nothing terrible about it; it was a test of competence on their part.
However, it is not that class of employé which is in question in the Vote, but the
extra staff who have had to be taken on at out-stations. I saw the sort of thing that happens when I made a tour of South Wales. A pit suddenly closes down and we have a flood of men coming to an out-station which was designed, properly and naturally, for a small number of applicants. The moment such a thing as that happens a staff has to be collected and has to be extemporised. If Members will bear in mind the circumstances of the coal industry in the past year, it will be manifest to them that such cases have been numerous, and that the staff needed to deal with sudden and urgent emergencies which could not have been foreseen was a very considerable one indeed. That accounts for the great bulk of the expenditure on the out-stations.

Mr. MAXTON: Were there no surplus staffs available in other parts of the country where there has been a diminution of unemployment since this Government came into office? We have been told there are signs that unemployment is diminishing; could no surplus staffs have been transferred to these bad areas?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, transference is made where transference is humanly possible, but it is not always possible to send a staff from a centre of employment far away to, say, Merthyr Tydvil or the Rhondda Valley. Besides, the men who would be suitable to deal with the cases in one particular industry—who would understand the conditions—could not usually be found on the staff of an Exchange in a residential district or a district which was the centre of a quite different industry. We transfer where we can, but transference is only possible within fairly ascertainable limits, which become well known to people who are cognisant of the difficulties in dealing with sudden flushes of applications.
The right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Labour has said that we budgeted badly, so to speak, with reference to the unemployed; and that brings me to the question of the Treasury contribution. I am not quite sure that I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, but I think his point was that this item of the Treasury contributions would not have been so large if the
number of unemployed had not exceeded our estimate to the extent it did. Was that the right hon. Gentleman's point?

Mr. SHAW: Yes, my point was—it is perfectly obvious—that if the number of unemployed had been fewer, that large amount would not have been needed.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: But may I just point out this to the right hon. Gentleman? Surely it is the other way round? The more people there are it; work the greater the number of contributions from the Treasury in respect of each of them. Than is the case, if I may put it to my predecessor with all deference. As far as I know, the real reason for the increase is that which was given by my hon. Friend beside me, which was that in the first place the number of insured persons has largely increased. The more people there are in work and making contributions, the greater the contributions from the Treasury. It is partly due to the fact that the number of insured persons has increased, and also, so far as we can make out, to a larger number of people having been working on unsystematic short time and paying their contributions at the same time. Taken altogether, the number of persons paying contributions was greater than it would have been possible easily to forecast. I say quite frankly to the Committee that it is perfectly impossible under any administration to forecast anything of this kind with absolute accuracy. From to-day we are trying to do it with greater accuracy, and that being so, I will ask the Committee if they will now give us this Vote.

Mr. PALING: On the subject of the qualifying examination, were these women informed at any time when they were promised permanent jobs that a qualifying examination or an examination of any sort would be necessary at any time of their lives while they remained at the Ministry? Is it not a fact that some of these women had been in the employ of the Ministry five or six years before any question of examination was mooted to them? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that women who have entered the Service with that promise, and have spent several years in the Service, should then be faced with a qualifying examination, in view of the
fact that they have admittedly given excellent service and have performed every duty asked of them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that there was any undertaking or promise to give them permanent posts subsequently.

Mr. PALING: But there was, only the trouble is that it cannot be proved in writing.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: So far as I know there was no undertaking to give permanent posts to people who would subsequently be subjected to a demand to pass a qualifying examination. That is so—to the best of my knowledge. I have verified it just now; it was my impression before, and I believe it to be the case.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.